lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Holyfield's headbutting is why he won. You can't even question it ... Tyson was visibly hurt and buckled by a few of them.

He tried that nonsense again in the second fight but Mike wasn't going to have it. To top it off he's a PED abuser.

To this day boxing has never seen anyone else like Iron Mike. The speed, power, skill, defense, footwork is still unrivaled ... the way he powered through the entire division was something that was never witnessed before and hasn't been witnessed since.

His victims were hoping to just survive with him those days. People were even commenting on how his punches even sounded different then others. The man was the most popular athlete on the planet during that time, not even Michael Jordan was as huge as Mike was in his prime. Muhammad Ali is the only other athlete that compares with him in popularity and recognition.

 

Wlad has been ducking James Toney for over 8 years now

He ducked a Puritty and Sanders rematch and let his brother fight his battles

 

lol, another ******ed comment. Briggs was lineal champ in the 90s

 

That's fairly reasonable.

Only real things to discuss about it are:

5). It's harder to fight everyone when you're not splitting the division with your brother. (See 4) )

6)longer. Maybe. More dominant? No. Because there has been a clear top 2 fighters in the division for years. And they haven't fought. ( see 4) ).
I don't expect them to fight. But you can't be dominant except for that other guy that was just as dominant. That's just an unfortunate side effect of the two brothers unique achievement.
Up until a couple if years ago, I'd say Vitali would have had a great chance to beat Wlad.

7) I don't think you can go back and legitimize the WBO belt Wlad initially had. It was clearly a second tier belt at the time.
Lewis and Holyfield by everyone's agreement fought to be Undisputed Champ. Tyson was undisputed. At no time was the WBO considered on par with the other belts at that time. Wlads been legit since beating Byrd. Which is still a long and impressive stretch.

8) again. Title defences the only thing I'd question.

 

I would argue Haye, Ibragimov, Byrd and Peter were much tougher opponents than the versions of Tyson and Holyfield that Lewis beat.

 

lineal champion is just a paper title

 

now your argument breaks into pieces. In 2000s Briggs won WBO and in 90s he was lineal. What were you trying to prove? lol:huh

 

You do realize that Wlad stopped Botha a year and a half after Lewis did, right? So... you must rate that win very highly for Wlad?

Let's take a look at Holyfield's "big wins" over those great HOF fighters that you speak of...

Tyson - was a completely shell of a fighter by the time that Lewis fought him. Tyson went on to get knocked out by Danny Williams in 4 rounds and knocked out by Kevin McBride in 6. This win means less than Holmes win over Ali.

Holyfield - Not only did Lewis BARELY beat Holyfield in their 2nd fight. Holyfield was in steep decline from the Holyfield of the early to mid-90's. The same Holyfield went on to have the fight of his life against John Ruiz. 3 TIMES IN A ROW! Was then embarrassed by Chris Byrd and knocked out by James Toney. You really hold that win in high regard on Holyfield's name?

Those 2 wins don't mean much. If you really give a guy that much credit for beating a couple of guys who were formerly great fighters... then I would love to see how you view wins like I mentioned before... Holmes over Ali, Marciano over Louis, Tyson over Holmes, ect... NONE of those fighters get real recognition for those wins. For good reason too... because those guys weren't close to being the same fighters anymore.

The truth is that Lewis never fought the best fighters of his own era while they were at the top of their game. Lewis only rose to the top after the true stars of that era had burnt out. During the 90's the division was dominated by Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, and old Foreman. Lewis didn't make his move until those stars faded out and then he picked up a couple pointless wins over what was left of Holyfield and Tyson.

Then you pump up his wins over Golota and Rudduck. Two guys who were hyped up to be more than they actually were. Two guys who went on to achieve nothing before or after their losses to Lennox Lewis. A couple of solid wins, definitely nothing spectacular. Golota had a knack for being blown out early and even though he was given multiple title opportunities on his name power, he never won a single title fight. Rudduck simply never was that good. Rudduck was already knocked out by Tyson and even David Jaco... who was not only knocked out in 3 rounds 2 months before he fought Rudduck... but also went on to lose 15 of his next 16 fights after he beat Rudduck.... while being knocked out in 12 of those 16 fights. Now, a loss like this can be swept under the rug if Rudduck had overcome it to have a great career... but he simply never managed to beat good fighters... much like Golota.

 

Sorry?

Those guys were better than Holyfield.
Who at the time had the WBA, IBF, Ring (spit) belts. Was lineal champ, and actually favourite to beat Lewis.

You think Iggy was better?
Peter?
Byrd?

Come on man. Be serious.

 

There is absolutely no question about that. Lewis' wins over Tyson and Holyfield mean next to nothing. Why do people try and give Lewis great credit for those wins over shells of guys who were formerly great? It's no different than Holmes beating Ali. Hell, the Holmes that Tyson beat was better than both Tyson or Holyfield by the time they fought Lewis. Tyson went on to get knocked out in 4 rounds by Danny Williams, and Holyfield went on to come out on the worse end of a trilogy with John Ruiz.

 

that he had a belt in the klit era but not in the 90s

 

Are you being serious? John Ruiz proved to be better than that Holyfield. Ruiz beat Holyfield more impressively than Lewis, ffs. Byrd absolutely embarrassed Holy when they fought after Ruiz was done with him.

 

Widdow. You make some great points. Then spunk them all away by saying the era was dominated by guys like Bowe, Foreman and Moorer.

Moorer didn't dominate at all. How many title wins did he have? 2? 3?

Foreman lost to Morrison. (You know Lewis beat him right?)
Foreman lost to Briggs. (Again. Guess who beat Briggs after that?)

Moorer made his name by beating Holy.
Bowe is great because he beat Holy. Who is great. Because he beat Bowe.
Of course.
If you claim Lewis didn't dominate, then there is absolutely no way on earth Bowe could be considered to have dominated the division.

American coverage may have been dominated by those names, but out of all them, only Tyson really dominated.

 

His win over Holyfield means next to nothing...WHAT?

Holyfield was WBA and IBF champ at the time!!!!

Beating Holyfield made Lewis the undisputed champ!

What sort of ****** statement is it saying his win over Holyfield meant nothing???

Holyfield was beating top ranked guys7 years later,he was still beating top ranked guys 6-7 years later.

In 2007 he KO'd Maddalone in 3. Boystov who people are hyping went the distance with him a few years ago. Fury took 5 rounds to stop him recently.

He also beat Oquendo,who was ranked in the top 10 in 2007.

Yet you're claiming he was washed up in 1999??

 

I'm not a Lewis fan but he clearly beat Holyfield both times and the first fight was a robbery.

Bowe ducked him and Lewis was the dominant champion for most of the 90s