Lennox Lewis historical standing without avenging his losses.

Suppose Lewis never got a re-match vs McCall or Rahman.

Would be be viewed differently today?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

Exact point I was making. Thanks

 

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.

 

he was hardly stiverne, he had 3 good defences.

sorrymate, but stiverne had nothing, you are wrong.

but he was a titlist yes.

 

“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