"Lennox Lewis wouldn't be THAT good if he fought in the 60s or 70s"- James Toney

I've consistently refuted the statements you have made, as though they were fact, with actual facts. No wonder then that you don't value opinions based on actual facts - just those that support your own BS agenda.

Thus, it is you who quite likely lives in a fantasy world.

Yes - "expected" to - but, never mind.

And, to use a report on the eventuality of a Lewis/Holyfield bout being signed, in order to deny there was an intent to fight Akinwande before Lewis, is a total joke. Again - never mind...


The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Maryland)
Mon, September 28, 1998
(Sports Section - Page 2D, Column 1)

excerpt from ‘After unimpressive win, Lewis seeks unification bout against Holyfield’

‘

This content is protected

’


It should perhaps also be pointed out that, at around the same time, Holyfield and his team hadn't ruled out a third fight with Tyson before finally getting round to Lewis.

 

So, if Holyfield really wanted to fight Akinwande before fighting Lewis (which is far from proven fact), but eventually ended up fighting Lewis, doesn't it mean that he wanted to fight Lewis MORE than he wanted to fight Akinwande?

 

Rankings are based on actual accomplishments not speculation. The fact is Tyson was shot when he fought Lewis and arguing that Tyson or Holyfield ducked Lewis earlier doesn't give him wins over prime versions of them.

Lennox can claim to have dominated the very end of the 90s and early 2000s but not earlier. That would be like claiming Larry Holmes was better than Ali in 1973 and 1974 because he beat him in 1980.

 

Not necessarily. Holyfield was clearly intent on fighting Akinwande in the early part of '99. And, there could be a number of reasons why the Lewis option finally became the one King opted for; Akinwande not being fit, for one.

Earlier in '98, Holyfield had already dismissed a Lewis bout, for the same amount of money that he would eventually agree to for getting in the ring with Lewis. People can make of that what they will.

My point remains that Holyfield was in no hurry to fight Lewis. This much seems clear, given that he'd been talking about it since '93 and he was still procrastinating in '98.

 

James Toney kind of had the chance to prove all his theories, and he blew it!

He got key fights against Rahman and Peter, which it was probably within his abilities to win, if he only trained properly.

 

Toney's Heavyweight credentials consist of a win over a truly shot Holyfield; failed drug tests and contentious results.

 

Far too much is being made of the 'dominance in the 90s' aside and quite why Lewis/Tyson keeps being brought into frame, I do not know. Your analogy is, at best, irrelevant.

I think it would be difficult to dispute that both Lewis and Holyfield shared the majority of the Heavyweight honors, during the 90s (Douglas' and Bowe's reigns here were brief, as was Tyson's stint as a titlist). Ultimately, however, it was Lewis that proved to be the better of the two. How much of that one wants to speculatively blame on Holyfield being past prime, is down to the observer.

Personally, I don't think any version of Holyfield could have ever beaten Lewis.

In any event, contrary to title of the thread, I think Lewis was good enough to have had a chance of dominating the 70s, which was the initial and more pertinent point, made earlier.

 

This is it. All of them had their (often unexpected) struggles. Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson etc. Mercer was tough and anyone can have a tough day with the likes of him or someone his level. ​

 

Yeah, I can see Joe wearing him down and stopping him

 

207 pound Joe? I don't know. It isn't like Lennox would not land his right hand a few times and I don't see how Joe takes that big right from a guy that much bigger. That is a big difference and Lennox really punched through and got leverage with that big body. Frazier would have to try and get inside to land that left hook and that would be hard with that right hand waiting but who knows. miracles happen which is almost how I see it. Heavyweights sizes are always going up it seems as the years go by to the point that we cannot realistically match heavyweights of the past with heavyweights of the present. They would be maybe one or even two weight classes apart. It would be like matching Sugar Ray Robinson with Rocky Marciano in the past, yet saying were the same weight..

 

Toney makes me laugh. More so before when I got all his jokes, now I can only make out about half of them.

 

It would be another Ruddock or Golota job. Lennox knows hes in against a ferocious left hook pressure fighter and cant let him warm up and even if he does imo Lewis still wins by KO.Ive said previously that Frazier starts slow in every fight and renowned for it, Lewis has elite ring iq and I think he destroys Joe. Down to size as much as skill, Joe just cannot make up for that

 

I could almost see exactly what he did to Golota. Frazier being hit and Lennox just leveling him down over and over.. Just too small. It is not about the matchup as the size.

 

Its to easy to see isn't it, like obvious imo..Frazier was a monster, but its just not fair pitting him in with someone 3 stone heavier 6" taller with the skills Lewis has. If they were all roughly the same size in a fantasy matchup i'd have Frazier top of the food chain, crippling fighter to have to face, but reality Lewis trounces him

 

This is why I mention the size.. Sometimes heavyweights of the past are matched up andpeople saywho would win. Stylistically if they were the same size, we have some great fights.Frazier vs. Marciano would be a war. Frazier vs. Lennox, then I think Lennox has nothing to hold off Frazier with if they were the same size.. The size differences and gains at heavyweight changed everything and even the styles change with the added weight.