Lennox Lewis historical standing without avenging his losses.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mendoza, Mar 25, 2018.


  1. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,334
    Jun 29, 2007
    Suppose Lewis never got a re-match vs McCall or Rahman.

    Would be be viewed differently today?
     
  2. J Jones

    J Jones Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,828
    1,414
    Jul 19, 2017
    I would view him differently. By avenging the losses, I consider him an ATG who had a temporary defensive lapse in a division where one punch doesn’t just change fights, it ends them.
     
    lloydturnip likes this.
  3. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,026
    Sep 22, 2010
    if there'd have been no rematch clause he would have chased em all the way to australia and won.
    You are asking "if the North Pole was a jungle then...."
    there is no never with lewis in avenging losses, unlike some bros and hos we could mention.
     
  4. The Long Count

    The Long Count Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,276
    8,538
    Oct 8, 2013
    I would of liked to see him rematch Mercer my friends attended that fight and they all felt Mercer did enough for the call. I always scored it a draw.

    To the question - I don’t think he had to avenge the McCall fight. He wasn’t a finished product then. So I don’t think had that rematch not taken place it would have affected his standing. I do think he had to avenge Rahman. He was the champion of the division and Rahman one shotted him. That was big revenge and big elevation of his all time status for me.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,206
    46,457
    Mar 21, 2007
    The losing champion has been getting a rematch, generally, since Floyd Patterson. A losing challenger, of course, has far less recourse.

    But that's not relevant to this thread, of course.

    That a losing champion has a near-right to a rematch and a losing challenger really doesn't. Not relevant. Of course not.
     
  6. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,026
    Sep 22, 2010
    of course he had to avenge the McCall fight. He was champion of the world, the immediate thing if you want people to respect you as champion is rematch a loss. It has nothing to do with being a finished product.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,206
    46,457
    Mar 21, 2007
    He wasn't "the champion of the world" though. Either Michael Moorer or George Foreman was, I forget. Lennox Lewis was just a beltholder, really no different from Charles Martin or Stiverne.
     
    The Long Count likes this.
  8. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,026
    Sep 22, 2010
    well with the lineal stuff, I respect that, but we all know who would have won if you put foreman or mooorer in with lewis at that time. But I gotta repesct the lineal.

    That said, what I said stands in that Lennox would be expected to get his title back, not run away like a coward.
     
  9. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,099
    5,684
    Feb 26, 2009
    I don't see how it means that much. The fact he lacked huge huge prime fights against another bigger guy like Bowe, means his legacy rests on his losses. So it helps him there.
     
  10. The Long Count

    The Long Count Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,276
    8,538
    Oct 8, 2013
    He was just a belt holder at the time. The champion was Moorer or Foreman. Nobody viewed Lewis as the best anyway he wasn’t the “man” of the division. He was basically Stiverne at that point in regards to just a strap holder
     
  11. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,088
    Oct 28, 2017
    He didn't really avange his loss to McCall anyway, not satisfyingly. I think Raham was pretty clearly a blip, but for his career I think he needed to regain his title.

    I don't think it really would change my opinion much, though not wanting to avenge them would be weird.

    I don't think it'd really change how I rate him (which is very highly, possibly at the top H2H).
     
    Eel87, steve1990 and Saad54 like this.
  12. The Long Count

    The Long Count Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,276
    8,538
    Oct 8, 2013
    Exact point I was making. Thanks
     
  13. Saad54

    Saad54 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,810
    6,541
    Dec 10, 2014
    There is a huge ** next to his "avenging" of the McCall loss.

    McCall one punch koing Lennox was much more impressive than Lennox being allowed to t off on a psyche patient like McCall with absolutely nothing hurting McCall.

    The devasting Rahman loss was avenged nicely - but it is a huge stain on his standing that he was ever one punched by a medicority like Rahman.
     
  14. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,026
    Sep 22, 2010
    he was hardly stiverne, he had 3 good defences.

    sorrymate, but stiverne had nothing, you are wrong.

    but he was a titlist yes.
     
  15. The Long Count

    The Long Count Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,276
    8,538
    Oct 8, 2013
    “But he was a titlist yes.”
    As was Stiverne. So just like Stiverne. Sorry if you lack reading comprehension mate.
    The comparison wasn’t who defended their trinket more just that neither was the “man “ of division. Sorry I have to spoon feed the answer to you like a child. Cheers