Lennox Lewis when he was 'on'..

Not sure why you would think that is what I was implying. Very few fights that would even be true.

I would say Lewis was mostly stepping backwards or to the side, and Ruddock was mostly stepping forward. But by no means, was that the only movements in the fight. I would say Lewis did throw some lead punches here and there, but the majority of the time his punches were in response to Ruddock coming at him, and the more effective ones certainly were.

 

My original comment that started all this...


I don't think it was a case of Lewis being "on" when he scored early knockouts, and simply wasn't "on" when he did not.

There were simply fighters who were more vulnerable to being stopped early or pushed him into exchanges faster.

Lewis isn't really even being that aggressive against say..Ruddock, he's actually fighting off the back foot but Ruddock keeps stalking him, coming forward with his gloves at his chest like an idiot and literally moves flush into the first right hand Lewis commits to.


And cue a 100 posts of people accusing me of being a hater, and arguing the defintion of "aggressive"

 

I don't know if one wants to call these disputes petty or simply a case of semantics, or, maybe a bit of both.

I recall having a discussion on a thread as to whether or not Tyson was a great inside fighter, or great at mid range, but regardless of which of those you feel is correct, he certainly KO'd fighters while being up close. Same thing with Lewis, whether or not he was "aggressive" or not, against Ruddock, there's no disputing the outcome of the fight.

 

Lewis at his very best is a helluva assignment for any great heavyweight. Whether he chooses to light the cannons (Ruddock, Golota, Grant) or play it safe (Holyfield I, Tua) stopping him from getting that W is going to be very tough.

 

Personally I thought both Ruddock and Lewis were aggressive in their fight. Ruddock edged forward and followed Lewis looking for openings while Lewis circled around Ruddock looking to create angles and get to Ruddock.

It definitely wasn't a defensive performance from Lewis. He stayed just out of range looking to land for long periods. While he did move, it was mostly laterally in a small circle, he was center ring for the majority of the fight and not backing up against the ropes like in some of his more defensive performances.

 

Did you watch the Phil Jackson fight?

 

You may have phrased it better than I, but that essentially was my point. Both were trying to forefill the role of aggressor and in terms of who was the effective aggressor, Lewis was the one.

 

Anyway, that was impressive performance from Lewis who was still pre-prime and went on to learn much more about boxing.

And that Ruddock was far from shot. A shot Razor was in late 90's - early 00's when he made comeback.

 

Did Douglas irreparably damage Tyson then, because unless he was fed scrubs he usually got fvcked?:rofl:rofl

 

No, it simply means you are looking at a cracked mirror. There is no need to go to college to understand that. 3 billion housewives could explain to you in an instant.:roll::roll:

 

The word you are looking for is AFFECTING.

Alternatively you could say " having an effect "

Are you sure you understand our language? That would be English, by the way.

 

There you go. So the result would show that Rudduck's aggression was far from positive, and in fact, ineffective, and by extension pointless.

 

Fvcking hell, next you will be claiming it was a defensive punch.:roll:

 

Wrong.

Unless you call simply moving your feet an action. So far nobody has thought of matching statues in a boxing match. Why don't you try it. It might catch on.:nut

Your pedantry is comical. I suppose a guy walking out of his corner towards his opponent with intent, is being the aggressor to you.:roll: