Why didn't Lewis face Ruiz and Byrd?

maybe you answered your own question in some thread and proved something to yourself. the facts remain unchanged. Show me one fight after '97 where Holy looked as good as he did then. I'm asking about it again and I still have answers - think about it, lead the thread, check again. is my question too complicated?

 

Lewis vs Holyfield 2 hence Lewis deserves credit for the win and you should stop with your agenda against Lewis end of.

Pretty simple really.

But I like you how try and change goalposts from "since 1997" to "after 1997" after I proved that theory to be wrong.

 

It's hard to measure. The first fight seems harder and he fights better in the second one. The trend was therefore upwards. What do you think?

 

the second fight with Lewis was weak, but considering the fact that in the first Holy he fought with a tall outfighter for the first time in about 7 years, he could have felt better in it. However, it is still a much weaker Holy. I see that you really want to prove that you are right, but there are only two possibilities - either Holy was getting weaker and that's why he lost to Lewis, or Holy was still in good shape but Ruiz was as great as Lewis and gave Holy an equally good fight. Choose what suits you better. If the second possibility, Ruiz turns out to be a worthy fighter and I'm sorry that Lewis didn't fight him. If the former, it looks like Lewis defeated the competitor who was on the inclined plane. There is no other way but try to look for it, I am curious about your theories, they are quite funny

 

What's funny is you change the goal posts to suit your agenda against Lewis.

You said "since 1997" and when I come back with a good argument to counter that claim you then you changed it to "after 1997". So what that's telling me is that you're always going to find fault, hence it's a waste of time discussing a topic with someone who is biased and clearly has an agenda against Lewis.

 

I still have the same opinion - Holy's last fight at an elite level was against Moorer in 1997. Later it was getting worse and in 1997 he never reached this level again, as evidenced by fights with Bean, Lewis, Ruiz, Rahman. What don't you understand about this sentence? what is the difference after Moorer 1997, from Moorer 1997, after 1997, from 1997, the last one was Moorer in 1997? they mean the same to me. That in 1998 Holy did not look like an elite fighter and considering his age and record, it is logical.

 

It might have had, but I don't know. Holyfield looked really good in the second fight, I would make him a favorite against anyone not named Lennox Lewis on that night.

 

Someone said Lewis never faced a southpaw in his pro career. Is this true?

 

This AFAIK a British based site so naturally so have the Lewis press agents pipe in here.

 

Do you even read what you type ?

Your original statement was "Holyfield was in decline since 1997"

And now in another sentence you're saying "Holyfield had an elite performance in 1997" lol.

So how could Holyfield have been in decline in 1997 if he had an elite performance in 1997 wtf ?

Do you make this up as you go along to fit your agenda ? do you not see the contradiction in both of those statements ?

Saying "in decline since 1997" and saying "in decline after 1997" is two different statements my guy.

He last elite performance wasn't vs Moorer in 1997 clearly it was against Lewis in the rematch ? as another poster pointed out @MaccaveliMacc what's to suggest that Holyfield didn't decline after the Lewis fights ? or maybe Ruiz just has an ugly clinching style that off set Holyfield ?

The fight vs Bean doesn't suggest he was past it.....Holyfield clearly won the fight Bean is a durable spoiler so it's not surprising it was an ugly fight that went the distance.

 

No it's not true he fought Greg Gorrell in his 6th pro fight who was a Southpaw but he never faced any notable Southpaws though.

 

Another problem for Lewis is that he fought in an era in which top fighters generally didn't face each other and many guys made it high in the rankings without proving themselves raising questions about how good they were in the first place.

A number of highly ranked guys Lewis fought do not appear to have deserved their rankings with the benefit of hindsight like Michael Grant and Mike Tyson for example.

 

You could say that about pretty much every Heavyweight in this current era.

Grant beat Golota who was ranked in the top 10 and beat other notable contenders impressively like Savarese, Izon, Gonzalez, Sullivan, Cole. Not a great resume but certainly solid enough and deserved being ranked in the top 10 at that time not to mention being 31-0.

 

Not in my book. I have more than 10 guys beating him in 2000
Lewis
Holyfield
Tua
Vitali Klitschko
Chris Byrd
John Ruiz
Wladimir Klitschko
Hasim Rahman
Kirk Johnson
Mike Tyson
Oliver McCall

To name a few. Probably he also loses to Akinwande, Sanders, etc

 

McCall in 2000 was considerably past it, Rahman, Ruiz, Johnson, are all debatable TBH. The rest i agree on but i still don't think that changes anything in regards to Grant being a deserved top 10 ranked fighter at that time.