How many prime fighters has Lennox lewis beaten?

You like to make this personal instead of addressing the facts.

It seems to me in the case of Lennox Lewis you don't seem to be able to address anything that could even slightly dent the lofty pedestal you have him installed upon.
Anything that isn't gushing with praise you consider negative, even nasty.

You often make this claim.
I probably don't even rate Holyfield as high as you do but we can probably agree on the facts.
If I say Dokes wasn't prime against Holyfield so can't really be included in 'prime opponent wins' I doubt you'd have an issue with it.
It wouldn't become an issue, you wouldn't think I'm being negative or unfair, it would just be a point that many could agree upon.

 

I didn't mention or imply serious mileage or extensive inside the ring damage. I don't think he took great care of himself anyway, was often out of shape, looked fat against Lewis, was coming off a 13 month lay off, his ranking had dropped, he was coming off a LOSS and a DRAW, he was 35 years old, was about 15 pounds heavier than his previous fight.
Is any of this untrue?

I have no idea what this Fury "analogy" is supposed to mean.
My rating of Fury skyrocketed after the Wlad fight, because I base rating on results and performance........ and I have been impressed by how he came back from obesity and the lay off, etc., it's uncommon.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Who is Ray Mercer analogous to? Fury? Wilder?
How?

Mercer was coming off a loss to Holyfield (who was coming off a retirement and a horrible loss to Moorer, and about to be beaten by Bowe for the 3rd time)
Before that Mercer had managed a draw with Marion Wilson.
Before that he's managed to scrape a close win over Jesse Ferguson, to avenge a defeat to him (Ferguson had been destoyed in 2 round by Bowe in-between, and would be destroyed in 1 by Bruno in his next outing).

These are facts.
I am happy to discuss how Mercer actually improved his form with the Holyfield fight, and went on to perform well in 1996 against Lewis and Witherspoon. I don't dispute that at all. But I take a balanced view, look at the form (of all concerned) and rate him accordingly.

So I don't say "Lewis beat the same Mercer that Wilson drew with", I think Lewis beat a better version.
I don't say "Mercer didn't deserve a ranking after the Lewis and Witherspoon fights", I think a ranking was fine reward.

But I balance it out with the facts that he was rated where he was rated, Lewis was the only truly prime fighter he did well against in '95-'96, he probably could have been fitter for the 10 rounder if he'd stayed at 225 or so, and his form and career from 1990 to 1998 or whenever tells a story of where he is at.
Consider the whole picture and form a balanced view.
Instead of just "he gave prime ATG Lewis hell, so he must have been elite and prime and amazing on that night, and everything on his record contrary to that was because he was unmotivated" ......

 

The (somewhat critical but fair) conclusions:

1. Mercer wasn't prime.
2. Lewis underperformed against Mercer (ie. it's not one of his best performances) but it is still a decent scalp.
3. Lewis in his prime, head to head, might be overrated (just opinion).
4. Styles make fights.
5. Mercer was no pushover and deservedly put himself back 'in contention' with his efforts.
6. The quality of Lewis's opposition might sometimes be overrated.

 

This is a perfect summary of exactly what I've been trying to argue on Ray Mercer.
I agree 100%.

 

Both sides have good arguments. I will say this - Mercer was part of the early 90's "If not Tyson or Holyfield, then who?" crop of heavies that included Bowe, Lewis, Ruddock, Moorer, Morrison and Seldon that created excitement and anticipation with a bright outlook for that particular decade.

The war with Lennox was his best moment but those low points against Ferguson were damaging as well.

It's strange, but Ray Mercer performed better against the prime 90's heavies (Morrison, Holyfield and Lewis) and struggled against past prime versions of the 80's retreads (Damiani, Holmes, Ferguson and Witherspoon).

 

Holyfield and Damiani were both 1980s. Both came out of the 1984 Olympic crop, Holyfield turned pro a couple of months before Damiani.
Damiani was not so much a retread against Mercer, I think he was still an unbeaten fighter.

Holmes, Ferguson and Witherspoon were just plain old though, that's true.

 

Going by the crooked rankings is zero credit in any dispute .. if you can define a gatekeeper , you should know that .. and again, I disagree. Your definition of gatekeeper is too broad going from fringe world class, losing to top caliber but defeating second raters which is the common reference point to a guy fought multiple world champions tooth and nail .. Bonavena did this with Frazier and Ali and Mercer did this with Holyfield and Lewis .. was Quarry a gatekeeper ? Was Norton who never won a title fight ? Was Jimmy Young ? By your definition they'd be... essentially there are only champions and the rest and please with the ranking organizations .. in fairness you may simply have a different definition of gatekeeper.

 

What i did was put much of what you wrote about Mercer into perspective with some context. My points were fair and correct.

 

I suppose I was referencing the "RING" rankings, or just generally where boxing fans and 'experts' would have ranked the heavyweights at the time, rather than crooked rankings.

 

Like the US Don King Boxing Tournament , that one ?

 

No.
Where did you rate Ray Mercer in 1994 and 1995 then?
Coming off the two fights with Ferguson, a draw with Wilson, and a loss to Holyfield (who most of us considered past it) ?
Tell me, if I'm so wrong on Mercer being either unranked and/or 'gatekeeper' ... where did you have him pegged going into the fights?

 

I've made my point. I simply disagree with you. You're an extremely knowledgable guy .. I just see this one a little different.

 

You didn't make a point. You completely failed to make a point.
You asked a bunch of irrelevant questions about Jimmy Young or whatever, and avoided the question about Ray Mercer, which is the relevant question.

 

Fair enough. But you didn't tell me how you see it. You didn't even tell me where you think I'm wrong. You made comments about me equating Mercer with Evangelista, and a load of other stuff I wasn't saying.

To be fair, we all have our off days.
Cheers.

 

Your first comment was "He fought bums mainly."

That didn't fly so it was changed to "Okay, bums and has-beens mainly. Mainly mediocre fighters.".

Lets define what a "bum" is by your definition. Even mediocre. Outside top 20? Outside top 50?

A guy like Tucker was a top #5 heavyweight when Lewis fought him. Holyfield tho past his best was rated the #1 heavyweight in the world when they fought. Even Tyson at that stage was still #3 despite being way past his best. I'm struggling to label such guys bums and mediocre. Perhaps most champs fought mostly bums and mediocre opponents. They've all got bucket loads of filler.

I could rate Holyfield as high as 8 or low as 12 i guess. I'm trying to remember where i had him when i did my ESB public list forever ago. Bottom half but inside the two by a bit i think.

Dokes is hard to pin down. Just as he hit his straps he hit the booze and coke harder and hit rock bottom. There's a big chance he was in better condition than he was against Coetzee that's for sure. I'd say Holyfield did actually beat a very respectable version of Dokes.

Mercer was prime against Lewis. He said himself he learned from the Holmes fight.

You said earlier Witherspoon was "over a decade past his prime" when he fought Mercer. Witherspoon was still champ at that stage. He's one of those guys that remained a quite effective fighter for a long time, aging gracefully i the ring.