Greater Resume: Lewis or Holmes?

[prime]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

If it wasn't for your welcome commentaries on my posts, I might feel invisibly insignificant. Thanks for the attention. (Please be kind enough to continue throwing peanuts my way!)

Duo, that the squeaking poster gets the peanuts does not in any way diminish your knowledge or bright-eyed, fun style.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by prime

Duo, that the squeaking poster gets the peanuts does not in any way diminish your knowledge or bright-eyed, fun style.

Thanks. I consider those posts somewhat boorish and pompous myself, but ChrisPontius seems to like them.

[achillesthegreat]

I think I'd have to go with Lewis but it is a toughie.

[Cojimar 1945]

Is this even up for debate. Holmes failed to face many of his best contemporaries. Lewis missed a few but seems to have faced more of the best heavyweights of his era.

Holmes oppossition in 1975-1977 was not spectacular. He should have stepped up in competition much earlier than he did.

[rekcutnevets]

I would have to say that their resumes are on par with each other's. I don't want to be a fence sitter, but that is really how I feel.

I don't think that Holmes missed out on any more fights than Lewis did. Holmes missed Thomas, Page, Coetzee, and Dokes.

Lewis missed Bowe, W. Klitschko, Byrd, Moorer, and Foreman.

I don't fault them entirely for their missed opposition. Foreman speaks like he wanted no part of Lewis. Moorer may have never been thought of by Lewis. Bowe just ducked Lewis.

Promoters, money, timing may have effected Holmes ability to fight the four I named for him.

I really don't think an edge can be given to either fighter in terms of their competition. Some of Lewis' look better on film, but that was only because they had better cameras in his era.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Speed debatable. Agility debatable. When it comes to the jab I think this is debatable too. Heart is debatable. Larry did have the better chin and recuparative powers though but Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes. Both ATGs of course but Holmes did squeak by Witherspoon and was beaten twice by Michael Spinx, something that I wouldnt ever see happening with Lewis even on a sloppy day. Lewis has those 2 early losses of course which although avenged do show a certain vulnerability. If they ever fought it would be a pick 'em fight as I see both as very nearly the toughest match-up for each other.

Anyway, Lewis still has the better resume. Although he fought Holyfield and Tyson later than was desired, the only real major contender he never fought and beat was of course Riddick Bowe. And perhaps Witherspoon if we are being picky.

Speed, not debatable, unless you are talking about the Holmes from the Tyson fight and after. Agility, again, not debatable, Holmes could get on his bike and get around like Ali did at times, Lewis couldn't. Jab, not even close. Larry KO'd a guy with a jab, and he knocked Ocasio down with one. Also, his jab was a stinging dart that most guys didn't see coming, or did, just it was too late. Heart, again, not debateable. Larry never gave a reason to stop a fight. If he was knocked down, he would get up swinging and slugging. Except against Shaver, but he got on his bike and stuck his jab in Shavers face until his head was cleared. Larry lost in a very disputed decision in the rematch with Spinks, and in the first fight, Ive heard mixed results. IMO Larry won it by about a round. Yeah, Witherspoon gave Larry some trouble, but Mercer gave Lewis a lot of trouble, and a 42 year old Holmes beat Mercer convincingly.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by hobgoblin

I don't entirely agree here. I don't call it much of a "break" to get up in the middle of the round (not saved by the bell) while you are really hurt and have to face a murderous puncher like Shavers. Some will say at least he had a chance, that is better than being outright stopped but I'm not sure how well Lewis would have done in the situation. You can make a weak case for Lewis' stoppages not being legitimate but I do believe that if he was allowed to continue - he would have been stopped shortly. He seemsed to indicate overwise against Vitali at the twilight of his career - but that is my opinion anyway.

Usually I don't like it when someone says that Lewis had a glass chin or "if McCall could KO Lewis with 1 punch than so can..." or stuff like "those two losses forever tarnish him as an ATG." I don't entertain such arguments. However, in COMPARISON to Larry Holmes, RELATIVELY, those two losses to ordinary contenders really do look bad when comparing against a guy that was 48-0 near the end of his career and even if he did get knocked down, he fixed it up right there and then in amazing display. I don't really hold much water to the controversial losses to Spinks in 1985 but clearly a controversial decision loss to Spinks during the twlight of your career isn't nearly as bad as 2 KO losses to ordinary contenders during your prime - one of them that Holmes would go on to school later.

I definitely say Holmes had the better record.

Great post.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Lennox had way more power and even more size. Both had great jabs, it wouldn't be a one-sided affair in that department at all. I wouldn't say he had more heart neccessarily, what makes you say that? Better chin yes. And the main reason of course being he had the better resume.

Watch the Weaver and Tyson fights. In the Weaver fight, Larry had a cold, took a beating, but made it a point to rally back, badly hurt Weaver with a great uppercut that dropped him, then land a great combo that put Weaver onto queer street to finish it. In the Tyson fight, Larry took a beating, but wasn't shy about hitting Tyson, or getting up to fight on. Lennox was about a level above Holmes in power, thats not "way more" Larry had some pretty good 1 punch KO's, like against Curt Sheppard or his rematch with Weaver. Larry's jab was faster, stronger, and way more effective than Lewis's, although Lewis had a great jab too.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.

I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.

And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean shit at the time. You can't ignore these things.

You seem to forget that 2 men in their 40's and lasted, and beat most of the guys of the 90's. Both of them went 12 rounds with Holyfield, each picking up about 4 rounds in the process. Larry went 12 rounds with McCall, only losing by 1 point on 2 scorecards, he beat Mercer convincingly, he beat Jesse Ferguson, he lost a controversial decision to "Dane" Brian Neilson in Denmark. Foreman went on to win the title by a come from behind KO, and lost it in a controversial decision. Most of the guys they beat/gave good fights, gave Lewis hell. Like Mercer.

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by Cojimar 1945

Is this even up for debate. Holmes failed to face many of his best contemporaries. Lewis missed a few but seems to have faced more of the best heavyweights of his era.

Holmes oppossition in 1975-1977 was not spectacular. He should have stepped up in competition much earlier than he did.

He fought Roy Williams in 76, broke his hand on his head, so he wasn't able to fight for the rest of that year. He tried to get a fight with Foreman, but Foreman ducked him, and later ducked him in the 90's. Larry failed to face 2 of the best contemporaries, and 1 of them was pretty much all politics. He almost got a fight with Coetzee, but the fight was cancled a few weeks before fightnight.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.

Tyson was gone for most of the early 90's, and was basically done by the time he came back. Holyfield was past it by 1995 as well. Bowe never did much, and retired around 1997, after being manhandled twice by Golata.. The Klitschko bros. feasted on the dying remains of the 80's and 90's, and were beaten by a 38 year old Lewis, a 38 year old Sanders, Journeyman Ross Purity, Lamon Brewster and Chris Byrd.

I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.

When most people refer to the 90's as being a great era for the heavyweight division, they typically are illuding to the early to mid 90's. This period started around 1988, and ran until maybe 1993. Tyson was gone, and would never be himself again. Foreman and Holmes had both seen the best of their comeback days. Holyfield was past it. Lewis was getting beaten by Mccall. Bowe was good in the Holyfield trilogy, but failed to do anything else there after.

And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean shit at the time. You can't ignore these things

I've explained this to you before on a multitude of occassions, as have others, yet you still chose to stick with your limited and unproven convictions. Perhaps it's you are ignoring " things"......

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Lewis has an all-round better resume and his best win (dominated a 36 year old Holyfield) is better than Holmes' best win (close win over an aging Norton).

If there was any doubt, the fact that Lewis actually took on dangerous fights and unified whereas Holmes didn't do so from 1982 should make the difference.

Good points. I have these two absolutely neck and neck for my number 3 and 4 spots. I've always had trouble separating the pair. Lewis has the two losses but he also took on all comers. Neither is in danger of dropping to 5. Good points.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

The Norton of the Holmes fight beats the Holyfield that fought Lewis 7 times out of 10.

I'd love to see that. Personally i highly doubt it.

[Holmes' Jab]

Originally Posted by Raggamuffin

Lewis has better resume but Holmes is a ATG and a better fighter

I too think Lewis' resume has the slight edge. Both fighters are ATG Heavyweights, for me Holmes ranks higher than Lewis regarding prime-from-prime greatness.

Not much in it at all, though ....

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

You seem to forget that 2 men in their 40's and lasted, and beat most of the guys of the 90's.

Beat most of the guys of the 90's? That's a strong claim.
Let's have a look.
The 12 best fighters of the 90's: (in no order)

Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
McCall
Holmes or Foreman (roughly equal i think)
Douglas
Golota
Bruno
Mercer
Morrison
Tua


You say they beat most of the best guys of 90's. Of this list, they only beat Mercer. That's a grand total of 2 out of the 12 best. How is that "most of the guys in the 90's"?

Both of them went 12 rounds with Holyfield, each picking up about 4 rounds in the process.

That fact that they lasted the distance was impressive, especially in Foremans case because Holyfield was beating him up badly. They won at best 3 rounds a piece. So what? 3 rounds out of 12 is nothing. It's being dominated, unless the other rounds were close, but they were not.

Larry went 12 rounds with McCall, only losing by 1 point on 2 scorecards, he beat Mercer convincingly, he beat Jesse Ferguson, he lost a controversial decision to "Dane" Brian Neilson in Denmark. Foreman went on to win the title by a come from behind KO, and lost it in a controversial decision. Most of the guys they beat/gave good fights, gave Lewis hell. Like Mercer.

Holyfield, who gave Holmes & Foreman a little more than a 'good fight' didn't give Lewis that much hell though. Not in the ring, anyway.

They did extremely well for their age, but let's be honest here. Both had one good win and outside of that, they lost when they stepped up or struggled with mediocre opposition.