Why doesn't Lennox have universal approval ?

You've said that before. You're getting kind of boring too.
I've made plenty of definitive statements.

:rofl

My point was that Holmes is greater than Lewis, and the comparative performances against Mercer are certainly worthy of being taken into consideration, preferably minus all the excuses for Lewis and for Mercer. I think I made that point clear enough.

As for your question, you are simply asking for a long discussion around fantasy/hypothetical match-ups which don't have any right or wrong answer.
Which is strange coming from someone who pretends to not want to "go round and round for the sake of it" ....

I'll say Evander Holyfield and hope you're happy. :good

 

For me though, it's not a matter of who beats who hypothetically, at their bests. It's more about accurately assessing the time periods.

I disagree with the claim made from some quarters that Lewis was clearly the number 1, or clearly dominated a decade-long era.
(Of course, when people ask me for details and explanations, I just state the facts and then get accused of "nit picking" etc.)

I don't see anything complicated in the fact that some eras are a little chaotic and no single fighter remains dominant constantly. Often it's a sign of a fairly strong era, or at least a healthy rivalry or two at the elite level, the fact that the #1 position shifts a lot or is not easily defined over such a period. I can only guess others like to construct a strong pecking order where there isn't one.

I'm boring and repeating myself precisely because some people refuse to understand something so simple.

 

Lewis's main error, if one wants to suggest he underperformed, or he simply wasn't as good as Holmes, was that he was trying for the knock out and he really wasn't thinking of it going to the cards. He clearly had it in his mind that he could KO Mercer, which as a huge tactical error.

As to who is better between Holmes and Lewis, hard to say. I have them ranked pretty close and actually go back and forth between the two, much as I do between Ali and Louis.

Someone who is pro Holmes could use Mercer fight as an example of Holmes being better, but I really couldn't imagine a 37 year old Holmes taking on, and beating, the version of Vitali that Lewis fought.

 

I think he cherry picked his way thru.....the Rudduck win was impressive and unexpected tho....

 

I believe you are wrong. Holmes was past prime and was coming off 3 (2imo) losses. 4 if you count Willimams Seven years earlier.

Holmes was at his worst. Mercer was at his best. He controlled Mercer with his jab and the remnants f his old movement.
1995 Lewis had a poor jab and clumsy movement. Thats why Ray was able to make him fight his fight.
Lewis didn't have possession of the skills a 1991 , past prime Holmes had in reserve to beat an unbeaten Mercer.
Thats why Unforgiven is correct. Holmes>> Lewis . Undeniable

 

Yes and the 45 years old Holmes was much more impressive than Lewis against the prime McCall who destroyed Lewis easily in the second round.

 

Well ok, do you want me to use another fruit, ok check this out how about....Orangepicked is that good enough? Clown..... :crybaby

 

Lewis Never fought the fights he needed to, at the right times to solidify his all time status.

Not his fault entirely. Past best Tyson, never fought Bowe.

Arguably lost to Holyfield and Mercer ( both I think won against him)

Koed by Journeymen Rahman , and was in gracious in his NON win over Vitali. Then refused a rematch to back it up despite saying he would.

My grade. A- / Incomplete

He looked lost at times, and never implied a sense of real confidence. He was tremendously skilled for a big man. Not much else there.

 

Balder i do not know how you can see it that way.

Every HW & FIGHTER ever had Rocky moments. Even...Rocky, with disputed wins & not great competition.

Despite Lewis being overly cautious against Holyfield, I cannot fathom how you saw Holyfield winning either time. He did not land as much, control the pace, neither generalship, aggression, or power punches in his favor.

If Mercer did not tiire maybe he would have won, but while closer than w/Holyfield, cannot see how you score it for him.

Lewis often looked utterly dominant. Almost everbody never faces another ATG at their peak. But Lewis fought very good competition overall.

 

History will be very kind to lennox lewis, much in the same way Holmes has just been getting his dues in recent years

 

How anyone can say Lewis lost to Holyfield with a straight face is a mystery to me. The first fight was investigated the outcome was so ridiculous. Most had Lewis winning 9-3. The second fight even if I gave Holyfield the benefit of every close round, I couldn't get it any closer than 7-5 Lewis. So objectively that's 16-8 out of 24 rounds, which isn't particularly close.

The Mercer fight, I think could have gone either way on the scoring. But Lewis fought the wrong strategic fight. He clearly went into the fight thinking he was going to knock Mercer out. But he eventually realized that wasn't going to happen and it became a real dog fight. I don't have a huge objection to calling this fight a draw or either fighter winning by a round, but not the Holyfield fights.

In terms of a sense of confidence, I disagree. He showed complete confidence against Briggs, Ruddock, Grant, Rahman II, Tyson, for starters. And by the end of the Vitali fight, he was walking through his punches trying to finish him off. (same as with Briggs) so I don't know what your definition of confidence is, but when a fighter is walking through another fighters punches, coming forward and trying to end the fight, that seems like a pretty confident fighter in my eyes.

That said, he could be tentative at times, but he could also be confident as well. He wasn't consistently either.

 

If he cherry picked at all, it was more to ensure King never got his hooks in him than avoiding any particular fighter. I can't think of any fighter he out and out avoided. In fact I think he scared a lot of very good fighters with his size, aggression, and skill. When Lewis was in attack mode, he was one scary dude.

The one thing I think gets downplayed about Lewis, is his willingness to get back in the ring against fighters who have knocked him out. (McCall , Rahman) most fighters don't do that and statistically speaking the one's who do, usually end up losing in the same manner. Frazier - Foreman would be an example.

 

His resume isnt near Holmes.....he just flatout wasn't better than Larry, he would mopped the likes of McCall and Rahman instead of getting KO'd....

 

He should never have been stretched out by either 1 of these guys....