Why is Lennox Lewis considered a dominant champion?

I would like to know why so many consider Lennox Lewis to be a dominant heavyweight champion.

Perhaps I am missing something but I think it is clear that until November 1999 Lennox Lewis never was THE man to beat in the division, yet I see a lot of his fans propagate this idea that he was dominating the 90s.

And even when he became the real champion, he only defended three times before getting starched by a complete mediocrity and was very lucky to get an instant rematch, so for starters there really is no claim he was a dominant hard to beat champion ala a Tyson/Holmes, nor does he have many defenses as the real champ. To me during his 90s WBC reigns, Lewis was an alphabet champ, and describing an alphabet champ as dominant when there is another ‘real’ champ doesn’t quite work out.

It is undeniable that he did clean out the division but I do not think that can be conflated with being a dominant champion either. You could feasibly argue that when Bowe stopped Holyfield in 1995 to decide the best HW on the planet, the division had largely been cleaned out, in much the same way as Lewis/Holyfield had both largely cleaned out the division when they fought in 1999 to decide who was the best HW. Yet only one gets credited for defeating a load of contenders/prospects and dominating, whilst the other is ‘take away Holyfield from his resume and he’s got nothing’. Double standard for me.

I do respect Lewis for his achievements: I admire how he improved and turned his career round, he has a longish prime, and (although it sounds much better on paper) he was the last man standing of his era and has a solid resume, but one thing I cannot give him credit for is being this dominant champion that so many make out. I suspect that as the last ‘great’ heavyweight champion along with the ‘mythical 90s heavyweight division’, a large part of Lewis’ career has been rewritten.

I would like to hear some other opinions on this, particularly from those following his career at the time.

 

Yes I agree the Klitschko win in his last fight definitely does give his reign a better feeling.

I do think lineage/alphabet belts do get very subjective and you could chop years off Holmes’ reign applying various logic.

I think Lewis’ credentials do appear better on paper than actually were. To me he beat the real champion Holyfield in 1999 to then become the real champ, despite the Briggs lineal win in 98 so his reign was 99-2003. I might be in a minority here. But I think the fact he got one shotted smack bang in his prime and was lucky to get an undeserving rematch should rule out any dominance to his reign. The fact is when Tyson/Holyfield got separated from their titles it needed 2 ATG championship performances, whereas with Lewis it needed a half decent right hand, which to me cancels out the fantastic Klitschko win.

I get the length of months point, but I think it falls apart because you could mash Holyfield’s various championship reigns together and get a longer period than Tyson for example, yet only one of them was really dominant.

 

Defeating every fighter you faced is irrelevant when it comes down to being a dominant champ. Did Tyson beat everyone he faced? No. Was he a dominant champ? Yes.

Lineal as well. Beating Briggs meant absolutely nothing. Lewis was not THE champion. Holyfield was. Lewis was the other champ. Let’s be fair and start his reign from Holyfield 2 onwards. He’s 5-1 then.

Cumulative years don’t mean much either. Holyfield is what 7 cumulative years as a champ? Was he a dominant champ? No.

It’s these meaningless ‘beat every man he faced’ facts and numbers without context that do not convince me that Lewis was a dominant champion. Having to mash them all together to claim he was dominant rather than simply stating that he was going unbeaten against his competition in a substantial reign like the other dominant champs is why I’m not convinced.

 

The amount of stock you put in lineal is ridiculous. Was Holmes not the real champ in 78/79 after defeating the other best heavyweight on the planet in one of the great championship fights?? Or was it still Ali?

For me we need to apply common sense here. Holyfield beating Tyson in one of the highest grossing iconic championship upsets is clearly in this case a far stronger claim than beating the Foreman bum of the month robbery in Briggs.

Tyson was making big waves in the division even before Berbick. When he beat Berbick he now was the big deal in the division. I don’t think Lewis’ mixed showings around 97/98 can be compared to what Tyson was doing. Spinks was still lineal but not at the forefront of the division, getting stripped etc. Holyfield was THE man still when Lewis was lineal.

Even still Tyson’s consistent dominance of a far better set of heavyweights and the fact his loss came in a monumental upset ATG stars aligning performance rather than Lewis early starching to an utter mediocrity should put this all to bed.

Oh and Tyson starched a never been stopped old Holmes early. Lewis went 24 competitive rounds with an old Holyfield who was fighting 30 second a round and there are some knowledgeable guys who score the second fight for Holyfield or a draw lol.

I cannot see any argument for Lewis being more dominant than Tyson. I think we need some common sense in here. Caliber of performances, quantity of defenses, consistency, invincibility, performance required to take titles all favour Tyson. It’s not really close.

 

Yes I get the case for Lewis, but I find it funny when his fans pretend he was leagues ahead of Bowe/Holyfield and by far the best 90s heavyweight. I’m not certain that Lewis for certain achieved more than Bowe in the decade either.

It would not have surprised me at all of a young fresh Holyfield would’ve outhustled Lewis. Their second fight was awfully close and that was an ancient Holyfield. And accusations of ducking aside I think Lewis would’ve been in big trouble against Bowe.

 

Not just that. I wouldn’t even rate the guy that highly even without those losses. I have been watching most of his pro fights recently and the guy is completely overrated on these forums. Consistently lackadaisical, plodding and lacking killer instinct. I think the jury’s out whether from his own generation he was a better fighter or even as good as Bowe/Holyfield/Tyson. I certainly think Lewis was an underachiever for all the attributes he had. Lacks X-factor to be called a great for me.