Lennox never seemed to be rated so highly in real time DURING his career.

On one hand, you're slating Lewis for not fighting Ruiz and Byrd. On the other, you praise Tyson for his LEGENDARY run in the late 80's, which in your opinion is enough to put him around Top 5 HW of all time, as you yourself admitted, that his post-prison run was sh*t. So let's use the same logic towards Tyson you use to criticize Lewis, shall we?

Mike fully unified all three alphabet titles in 1987. This was a great year for Tyson. His 2 top contenders after that (except for the lineal champion Michael Spinks and people whom he already defeated) were Evander Holyfield and Tim Whiterspoon. Who does Tyson fight in 1988 instead of them?

1. Unranked Larry Holmes, who didn't fight for 2 years.
2. Unranked Tony Tubbs who fought 3 tomato cans in 1987 and got dropped from The Ring's Top 10.
3. Lineal king Michael Spinks.

So he only fought 1 Top 10 ranked heavyweight that year. Big one of course, but it doesn't change the fact he chose to fight 2 unranked opponents instead of 2 top contenders. But it doesn't end there. Let's go to the year 1989:

1. His next fight is against, again, unranked Frank Bruno who didn't fight for over a year and wasn't a Top 10 contender since 1986. Then he fights number 2 rated contender Carl Williams.

So again, it's yet another year without Mike fighting his top contender in Evander Holyfield. And what do we know, instead of him, AGAIN, he chose to fight the contender number 7, Buster Douglas. He was set to fight Evander after that, but got his ass whooped in Tokio. So, let's count. It would be 5 FIGHTS without fighting his top contender and chosing lower level of oppossition. 5 out of his 9 title defences.

So, you're telling me, Lewis doesn't even have a case for the ATG, but Tyson, who didn't fight his number 1 contender for over 2 years does? Off of what? And you're saying the best Lewis' win is Evander Holyfield, but the best Tyson's win is a blown up light heavyweight Michael Spinks while he was heavy favored to win anyway? Lewis actually beat Evander while being an underdog while Mike was beaten up by him while being a huge favorite. And he's an ATG off of that? On top of that, his loss to Buster Douglas is more embarrassing than Lewis' losses and he has way more of them. And ,what's good to point out, he never avenged any of them. Unlike Lewis. You can also argue 1999 Holyfield, 2000 David Tua and even 2004 Vitali Klitschko would beat 1988 Michael Spinks. Man, I would argue 1988 Holyfield beats Michael Spinks.

So the next time you post, I don't want to hear any praise towards Tyson legendary run as he avoided his top contender for 2 years. And that's very important to you, as you stated in this thread. Unless you want to be a hypocrite of course. Then, go ahead, do you.

Just for the record and other posters in here: I consider both Lewis and Mike all time great heavyweights. Just trying to show how this guy's logic is flawed due to his bias and waiting for his incoming mental gymnastics.

 

Again, you're asking for people to have some kind of a crystal ball and see the future. You can't make a case that Ruiz was a better fighter in 1999 than Grant. You just can't. And Lewis beat every notable heavyweight from 1999 The Ring's Top 10, so he didn't miss on anything fighting Grant.

 

I think some reasonable middle ground is in order here, personally. If a fighter is touted by all & sundry as the next big thing or a legit hot prospect, so someone fights & beats them (perhaps easily), & then that prospect goes on to do nothing…well, that isn’t his conquerors’ fault, & he should get credit for facing a feared figure as they were perceived at that time. But equally, if the guy goes on to just become an also-ran, like a Gerry Cooney or a Michael Grant, some shine should be taken off a win over them IMO.

 

If you use the narrative that Lewis cleared the heavyweight division of his era but didn't fight Foreman, Holmes, Moorer, Mercer II, Klitschko II, Ruiz, Byrd, you're simply telling the truth. Lack of knowledge or objectivity. what is real?
If you write that Lewis got the belt without a fight twice but you don't mention that he gave the belt away without a fight three times, it is a lack of knowledge or objectivity - what is true?
Holyfield acquired a challenger in 1988 but did not use them. Tyson managed to fight three current champions from November 1986 to August, which is unprecedented in HW. Tubbs and Bruno weren't great Tyson rivals but who were Holy's better HW rivals at the time? Stewart? Beaten and inactive Pinky? Dokes? McDonaugh? Rodriguez?
You know they were supposed to meet in June 1990, so it's nonsense to think that Tyson avoided this fight. In fact, Douglas kicked his ass and that's the only reason it didn't happen, but it would have happened at the beginning of 1991, but - now watch out! - Holyfield went to court not to fight TYSON IN THE FIRST DEFENSE AS THE FEDERATION TOLD HIM! and your whole narrative about who avoided whom is falling apart like a house of cards I have to ask again: lack of knowledge or objectivity?
Whitearspoon ok, good rival for Mike. It suited him stylishly. He would be an easy target. But he lost in the first round to Bonecrusher and it was Smith who got Tyson. Hell, Tim has probably lost 5 fights in his career that Tyson easily beat, and he won a split decision over the next few that Tyson beat easily. If Tyson had beaten him, it wouldn't have changed anything on his resume. You can say that Tyson was afraid of him, I think it was King who blocked Tim, but I don't have that much knowledge here, so maybe I accept your argument Tyson misses Tim, Lewis misses Bowe, Foreman... damn, I don't want to mention them again

 

True.

 

If Lewis hadn't faced Grant he would have been beaten easily by someone else like say McCline and nobody would fault Lewis for fighting him because he wasn't very good. Lewis just happened to be in the position to end the hype before someone else managed it.

Ability wise I'm not sure Grant was even top 15, let alone top 10. He's Lance Whittaker level in my book.

 

Skipping your greater point, I take issue with this ‘you have to beat a man twice to beat him once.’

The guys who beat Lennox, he fought twice and won decisively both times.

The guys he beat? He beat them. In neither case was the result in question — Mercer fought well but I don’t remember anyone thinking it was a robbery, and he literally punched holes in Klitschko’s face … that’s a legit TKO. If the fight is allowed to continue, he may have punched the guy’s entire face off.

It’s like Thor in that Avengers movie:

“He’s never fought me.”

“Yeah, he has.”

“Well he’s never fought me twice.”

Two guys fight and one wins. It’s not a best-of-seven. The winner doesn’t have to keep beating the guy to prove he’s better than a guy he just beat.

After Lewis beat Mercer, he was fighting McCall to become champ again while Ray had one more fight that year, disappeared for a year, then had one more fight and was gone for more than two years … if LL was ducking Mercer, then Ray was ducking the entire sport for the next three years. Is Lennox supposed to hire a private detective to hunt him down and try to talk him into resuming his career, lol?

As for Vitali, Lennox beat hm. Then he retired and never came back. Is every fighter who ever retired expected to rerun all of his first first? Did Vitali do that?

 

I absolutely agree with this, but 31-year-old Lewis did not convincingly defeat 35-year-old Mercer. I don't know if he even beat him. Is this domination on the ATG level? a fight about a draw in his prime with someone who has been out of the top for years? no.. and Mercer has always been mentioned as a success Lewis. For me, Mercer is just another proof, along with Briggs, McCall, Tucker, Bruno, Briggs, Vitaki, Mavrowic and several others, that Lewis was strong, Lewis was tough, Lewis was very good but - he was not great. And this bullfight was not a success.
Before the fight with Vitali, Lewis planned other fights. He didn't mention anything about retirement. There was talk of fighting RJJ. There was talk of a rematch with Tyson, which was fake. If you leave such a mess at home, it's rude not to clean it up. If you said A, you should say B. Lewis won against Vitali in one of the happiest fights I have ever watched. From the very beginning, speculations began about what would happen, what the rematch would look like, whether Lewis was so weak or Vitali so strong, discussions continue to this day. Lewis, however, packed his toys and left boxing, saying - I won, but I don't want to train anymore, I have no motivation, thank you, I'm the best, I know how to fight Vitali, he surprised me in the first fight, in the second fight I would have done it better but my mother told me to fight he didn't fight. A few years later I read - Lennox is an ATG who has cleared his era, won against everyone, united the heavyweight division, is underestimated because he is not an American and in one sentence he mentions: Mercer, Holy, Tyson, Klitschko... wow, it's impressive how someone like that does not remember

 

It always takes some time to properly evaluate a boxer's career.

 

Far less appreciated in real time than Holmes? Than Liston? Than Johnson?

 

it's actually very simple. When you evaluate current events, the first thing you look at is the fights. You see what they look like, what their circumstances are, what their course is. After years, the first thing you look at is your CV. Lewis' CV is simply vastly better than he is. Not that people suddenly became enlightened. Suddenly, after many years, they know boxing better than they knew then.

 

Just like Mike Tyson didn't clean out the heavyweight division of his era, losing to Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis, pulling out of the fights with the latter ones in 1991 and 1996. He also didn't fight Tim Whiterspoon, George Foreman, Michael Moorer and Ray Mercer.

He only gave up the belt once - not wanting to face Byrd. WBA belt has been taken criminally away from him by the federation and he retired after Vitali fight. Mike Tyson gave the belt up once as well.

Learn to speak English before you try to argue your points as I have no idea what you're trying to say. You embarrass me as a Pole... I guess you're trying to say that Evander wasn't a mandatory. So what that he wasn't? He was pursuing the fight with Tyson and real champion should fight his number 1 ranked contenders without alphabet bodies enforcement. So mental gymnastics part 1 on your side here.

What also was unprecedented was that he was lucky to enter the HBO unification tournament under Don King's promotion, which never happened before nor after.

We're not talking about Holyfield, so there you go, mental gymnastics part II, trying to change the subject. Evander was number 1 contender for 2 years and Tyson didn't fight him, he fought unranked opposition like Bruno and Tubbs instead.

They were supposed to fight in June 1990, but Evander Holyfield was his number 1 contender since late 1987, so you're just confirmed my point that Tyson avoided him for 2 years. Thanks. And again, you're changing the subject, I never argued that Holyfield's first reign was great, so you're punching the air here. When they were finally supposed to square off however in November 1991, it was Tyson who pulled out due to the rib injury.

Just like Byrd would have been food for Lewis, looking at the fact how Wladimir dominated him twice. And Wladimir was basically a white carbon copy of Lewis, with weaker chin and harder punch. Add Lewis' uppercut to the mix and Byrd is in for a rough night.

Let me mention them again: Tyson missed Tim Whiterspoon, George Foreman, Michael Moorer and Ray Mercer. Lost to Buster Douglas, Evander and Lewis.