Lennox Lewis vs. Chris Byrd.

I've always thought Byrd's win over Vitali is overblown. It was a still developing Vitali, who really hadn't come into his own, plus the shoulder injury played a part. I'm no Vitali "****" but this is how I see it. I just can't see Lewis losing to Byrd. Byrd might actually build a lead through activity, but he doesn't possess the type of hit and run style he would need to win over the course of 12 rounds. He isn't going to dent Lewis's mediocre chin. He's going to stop moving and fight off the ropes at times. Lewis will work the body when he has a chance and slow Byrd down. By the mid to late rounds, he's gonna hurt Byrd, and when he does, he'll get him out of there.

 

I think it's a bit of a reach to focus on the southpaw stance, as being Lewis' undoing against Byrd. I don't remember anything substantial being revealed about Lewis having issues with southpaws. Even if it were to cause problems, it's not the determinant of this bout.

Lewis had all the tools to beat Byrd; the size, power, mobility and the armory - southpaw or no.

Making someone look bad and winning rounds are quite different things. I don't think the Byrd/Vitali fight is a sound comparison. It's a contest Byrd was losing, against a hampered Vitali.

With Lewis' quality and accuracy, he has more than a puncher's chance of winning the fight. He could easily improve upon Vitali's effort - from the outside, inside or by KO.

I don't see a case for Byrd here, at all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Lewis by a 7th round stoppage....he'd find Chris in the 7th, and have him down twice, convincingly stopping him.

 

I certainly think it might be a harder fight for Lewis than most thing.. Especially if its an aging Lewis we're talking about.

 

I agree with at least one element/sentiment of your post - that the Tyson rematch was purely a money-grab by Lewis. However, contrary to your view on selecting Johnson as an opponent, I think it made more sense than Byrd, when you consider the Tyson connection and the potential money in the rematch. Everything Lewis said and did post June '02 (up until Tyson pulled out of the June 21st bill, in 2003) was with a view to a second, lucrative fight with Tyson.

When Lewis stated (repeatedly) that Byrd offered no competitive challenge, he was as equally aware that Byrd presented nothing but the stark probability of a terrible show, in what was supposed to be the gearing up towards to a big-money rematch. If you also consider King's involvement, Byrd being a King fighter and the money on offer for Lewis NOT to fight Byrd, it was a no-brainer.

Lewis being involved in the business side of things provided for some questionable decisions, from a sporting-only context, for sure. But, I honestly believe he was, post-Tyson, done with the sport mentally and being governed purely by the money on offer. And a few other things warrant some note, in the bizarre sequence of events, which ultimately led to the Lewis/Klitschko showdown...

It was Tyson (or Finkel) who activated the rematch clause, requesting so in writing, only days after his defeat. So it had already been decided that Tyson and the big-money rematch was the sole focus of any continued campaign, less than a week after Lewis had beaten him.

Johnson had always been on the map, from the moment Lewis decided to campaign towards a Tyson Rematch. I have no doubt that this was in part due to Johnson being perceived as, a) low-risk and, b) relatively saleable. I'm also led to believe that the bout was originally intended to be held in Canada, as a kind of Lewis homecoming (weird).

It was agreed that Tyson needed 'rebuilding', in order to establish some form of credibility for the rematch. Etienne falling in one round in feb '03 was not enough (despite Lewis having initially insisted on the 21/06/2003 bill being the rematch date). That's where the concept of the June 21st Lewis/Johnson-Tyson/Maskaev doubleheader was born.

Seemed like a reasonable marketing plan, until Tyson pulled out of the June 21st bill, precipitating the beginning of a legal and promotional nightmare for Lewis. This, followed by Johnson's pulling out, as well, and it's a wonder the whole event wasn't cancelled.

In short, I think the apparent 'spin' was more a symptom of the circumstances Lewis found himself in; not necessarily of his own making, as had been a recurring pattern throughout his career. Eventually, however, we ended up with a damned good heavyweight contest, which perhaps was the kindest outcome of all, in that Lewis realized the point he'd reached, which I feel enabled him to make the right choice to retire.

 

Lewis by wide UD.

Byrd was not able to deal with Wlad, so LL would be no different.

 

Emmanuel Stewart advised Lewis, to stay well clear of Byrd. Stewart said, the most likely result of them fighting would be, Byrd making Lewis look foolish, and Byrd winning a clear points decision. Lewis gave up the IBF belt so as to avoid facing Chris Byrd. A Lewis fight against any fighter in 1999-2003 was guaranteed to be a payday of at least $10-15 million for Lennox. But Stewart his astute trainer wanted nothing to do with the ellusive Byrd.. Boxing fans claim Rid**** Bowe ducked Lewis in 1993 by dropping a belt into the trash bin, Yet Lewis dropped all three belts to avoid the No1 contenders.

IBF Belt to avoid No1 contender Chris Byrd.
WBA Belt to avoid No1 contender John Ruiz.
WBC Belt to avoid No1 contender Vitali Klitschko. Lennox promised the entire boxing world, he would face Vitali in a rematch, yet he dragged out his title reign for another 9 months, until 2 days before he was to be stripped of his last remaining belt (WBC) then slithered off into retirement with his trousers full of brown.. Lennox Lewis had used John Ruiz as a sparring partner back in 1994/5 by all acounts Lewis struggled with the "Grappling Hook" style of Ruiz. 4 years later John Ruiz had fought his way to be No1 contender for Lewis WBA Belt, but Lewis wanted nothing to do with Ruiz.

 

Could you please cite the source for what you claim was Manny Steward's advice to Lewis, regarding Byrd?

 

I believe he's a Spaniard.

 

It doesn't matter. If they were going to fight Lewis would be sparring with lefties. And if they ever fought l don't see it being all that competitive.

 

The focus on Lewis supposed not fighting southpaws or not knowing how he'd do against southpaws reeks of bias.

One Lewis did fight a southpaw, Greg Gorell and beat him handily. Sure Byrd was far, far better but anyone saying Lewis didn't fight a southpaw is willfully ignorant to suit their agenda.

Secondly how many top southpaws were there for Lewis to fight? Byrd and Moorer, that's it. Not Sanders he was a fringe contender at best. Moorer after beating Foreman made it clear he didn't want to unify against Lewis.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/27/sports/moorer-rejects-idea-of-unification.html

Lewis knew the Byrd fight was a hard sell. Byrd was deemed unmarketable. HBO wanted Byrd/Holyfield for december so even the TV networks were not clamoring for Lewis to fight Byrd. King, Byrd's own promoter didn't even want it and paid Lewis $1 million and a land rover to drop the belt. Why would Lewis take a fight against an opponent who's own promoter didn't want the fight. You think Byrd would have ever got a shot at Lewis if his own promoter didn't want it?

And finally why does nobody criticise Bowe for never facing a southpaw. He never fought one, yet I've never seen a single comment on this forum about how Bowe ducked southpaws or how we would know how he'd do against a southpaw. Why the double standard, why is it only Lewis gets criticism from some for not facing a top southpaw, could there be an agenda?

 

Not really. It's a legitmate question.

I think the point is, Byrd - and Moorer for that matter - are better boxers than the vast majority of the names on Lewis's resume, title fight opponents included.

Bowe gets criticised loads. I guess people are too busy criticising him on other things to get round to southpaws.
Bowe is not relevant to the thread.Not sure why you'd bring him up. Could there be an agenda?

 

OK so it it's a legitimate question how does Moorer or Byrd beat Lewis? People throw around "How would he deal with a southpaw" but rarely actually breakdown how these southpaws would of beaten him.

Let's look at Byrd. Lewis's big weakness is his chin and inconsistency which led to his chin becoming a factor in fights he lost. Byrd has no power whatsoever, no way he hits as hard as McCall or Rahman, so no chance he scores a KO. If you think Byrd has a punchers chance you're a moron. So Byrd's only way of winning is on point's right?

How does Byrd win on points? He can't out jab the far taller and rangier fighter with the faster feet and better jab. Byrd can't win on the outside we saw that against Wlad and Vitali, Wlad dominated him from range and against Vitali he needed an injury to win and had to rush Vitali in bursts to land shots. No chance Byrd wins on points.

Then of course there is the "Byrd would make him miss and injure himself". Even if that did happen Lewis could just win with his jab alone from range. And the chances of him being injured are next to zero. Vitali was injury prone has had shoulder issues in other fights such as Chisora, he even retired due to his injuries. Lewis never had such issues with his body, never had any shoulder issues to my knowledge.

Now let's look at Moorer. Well Moorer didn't want to fight him, but let's pretend Moorer wanted to fight him. He could beat Foreman, how on earth does he beat Lewis? He isn't winning on the outside. Lewis's jab would keep the smaller man at range, Lewis also had the perfect foil for a southpaw the straight right hand, which is what led to his loss to Foreman. Sure he may have a punchers chance but then his chin is even worse than Lewis', he's more likely to get KO'ed than Lewis. He'd need to catch Lewis on a bad day.

So how does Lewis do against southpaws during his reign, he dominates them with ease.

I bring up Bowe because they are both contemporaries, both fought at the same time yet nobody brings about why he didn't fight southpaws. Why the double standard, just because he had other flaws doesn't mean he gets a pass. People don't bring it up with Bowe because it's a moot point at his best he beats Byrd and Moorer as well, hell even overweight Bowe would win both fights. Nobody brings it up with Bowe because it's an inane and pointless argument, but hey if it's Lewis it's a valid argument for some to criticise him.

 

I wouldn't expect Byrd or Moorer to beat Lewis either but I reckon there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that he "dominates them with ease". Regardless of the southpaw issue, they were actually better boxers than almost everyone Lewis beat. Byrd was especially awkward, at his best.
Wladimir Klitschko is generally not rated as high as Lewis around here but I feel he has a better track record of 'boxing at range' than Lewis had. I believe Lewis was better in many other departments but I can't credit him with doing to Byrd what Wlad did, it's possible but there's not as much evidence of Lewis putting on those types of fights.
Simply we can't credit Lewis with things he didn't do.

I disagree about Bowe. People don't care as much about Bowe. Bowe's resume is relatively weak outside of Holyfeld. No one gets into how he'd do against southpaws because the argument is more about how he'd do against other contenders.
I don't think it's particularly relevant that Lewis didn't fight southpaws either but it is legitimate question, and more legitimate is the question of how many good boxers did he even face, men with skills and speed rather than just big powerful guys with limited movement.

Evander Holyfield fought and beat a far greater range of styles than Lewis did, in my opinion. That's the comparison to look at, possibly. Not Bowe.

 

Nobody is crediting Lewis with wins he didn't earn, why assume Byrd or Moorer could win isn't that given them wins they didn't earn, you're contradicting yourself here mate.

How does Byrd beat Lewis? Explain this to me, how does a fighter who doesn't have the power to hurt Lewis beat Lewis? Even if he did have the power like Moorer, how does his southpaw stance mean he can somehow magically develop a straight right hand that could be effective over Lewis low left jab?

There are plenty of ways to legitimately criticise Lewis, he was arrogant, inconsistent, over rated jab etc. But this "maybe he couldn't handle a southpaw" garbage when he had all the tools to do so is ludicrous. Even more so when you consider a southpaw style lacks the right straight hand he twice became victim to, hence my original statement of bias.

But prove me wrong, show me exactly how Byrd wins or even how a southpaw style causes him problems, break it down. Maybe I'm wrong maybe the lack of a straight right doesn't mean they lack the most effective weapon against Lewis. Maybe the old adage that straight rights which was Lewis' forte is wrong, if so say it and prove it.