Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

No lower than 8-10. I say he's #3 or #4.

 

I rate Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson above him from the heavyweights of the last 30 years.

 

I'd be interested in hearing why you rate Tyson above him. Or Holyfield for that matter, but let's start with Tyson.

 

Tyson had an impressive run from 1986-89, 37 fights without defeat, including 10+ of those who were genuine top 10 contenders. Knocked out most, including some of his main rivals, wiped out the linear champ in 1 round, and the previous linear champ in 4.
Thing is, you know all this already.
I found Tyson to be a very impressive fighter. His resume is decent, and several of his best opponents were despatched with astounding ease.

 

I rate Lewis high because of his offensive skills and I would say he is the best of the big men North of 6"3 unlessyou consider that Ali was 6"2 Like Angelo Dundee says he saw him measured at or 6"3, other than that he is the best of the Big men at this point in time. I would say top around top 10 should be the lowest he is rated but My ratings change a lot depending how much of the recent film I have rewatched abd the impression it made, also I listen to opinions and everyone has a point. I rate Lewis between 5 and 10

 

Reading that it's almost convincing. Really, Tyson did dominate most of his opponents during his prime, knocking most of them spark out. That said, my main criteria for rating fighters, and I think it should be the main criteria for everyone, is the level of opposition defeated. Mike Tyson, he dominated a weak era. He beat Michael Spinks and Larry Holmes. Spinks wasn't a great Heavyweight, and Spinks had seen better days. Fact remains, for everything Tyson achieved, he never beat a great prime fighter in his life.

 

Lets look at Lewis's resume post retirment.

V, Klitschko, Ramhan, and Briggs have all gone on to win versions of the heavyweight title since Lewis beat them. Klitschko obviously twice.

If we want to drag all we can out of it, we would bring up Holyfields fight against Valuev, and the subsequent acomplishments of Andrew Golota (denied title twice vs Ruiz Byrd?).

Even McCall has had his moments since Lewis retired. I guess that Lewis's former opposition have ceased to be a force in the division about now.

 

An impressive run for sure, but wouldn't you say that his lack of longetivity, Lewis' superior record against ranked opposition, avenged losses and the fact that Lewis beat better opponents, makes him [Mike] rank lower?

 

He was the first (and only I believe) man to knock out Holmes, the first to knock out Thomas, the first to knock out Tubbs, and who knows---Spinks could have prepared harder for the Tyson fight than any fight of his life, but we would never know the difference. He was only 32, what exactly makes you say "Spinks had seen better days"? Spinks may not be an ATG Heavy, but he was definitely somebody. He beat a Larry Holmes who was vying for Marciano's record. You know Larry wanted that badly. I think Tyson's win over Spinks gets underrated because he made it look so easy.

 

I think the following can convincingly be ranked higher than Lewis:


Louis
Ali
Johnson
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Tyson
Holyfield
Liston
Marciano


That would leave Lewis at 11

 

Lewis did have more longevity. But let's not forget that Lewis was only the recognized champion from 1999-2003 (except for Rahman's brief reign). His previous belts were just alphabet titles. Tyson was champ from 1986-1990.

Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield (I'm looking at the prime of his career, not his washed-up days), Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman.

Tyson beat:

Berbick
Tucker
Smith
Thomas
Biggs
Tubbs
Holmes (old)
Spinks
Bruno
Williams
Ruddock


Lewis beat several fighters of comparable caliber, and he probably beat a few more of them. But neither Tyson nor Lewis beat a truly great fighter in or close to his prime. I wouldn't necessarily say Lewis beat better opponents.

 

As usual for these parts, a broad inquiry posted with no context, which leads to many possibilities and people arguing vociferously over a poorly framed question.

Legacy-wise, somewhere about 6.

Head to head, top 2 or 3.

 

See, this is what i don't understand.

Why is Tyson excused to lose against anyone post-Holyfield?? Why?? Because he wasn't as good as he used to be? Yeah, but isn't that what brings his legacy down? No one excuses Lewis for losing to Rahman, but he was 35 there.

Also, it's hard to be linear champ when you're being ducked. Tyson got all the relevant fights instantly during the 80's, which is great, but Lewis had no such luxury during the 90's, and this was something beyond his control. He can't help that Bowe and Tyson threw their championship belts in the trashcan to avoid him in '92 and '96, respectively.

Lewis beat a prime Vitali Klitschko, who was the future linear champion, when Lennox was 37 years of age. He also twice beat a still very good version Evander Holyfield, once by shutout. Holyfield is a great fighter and was close to his prime - he just destroyed a still excellent Mike Tyson two years earlier, and avenged his loss to Moorer by knockout a year before. Lewis also beat a peak Golota who just thrashed Bowe twice. He won every round against the highly dangerous Tua, who you could consider undefeated because most, myself included, had him winning over Ibeabuchi.

So, Lewis has the better quality wins of the two. As for quantity, he is also ahead of Tyson.

At the left you will see Tyson's opponents, at the right Lewis': (edit: sorry for the makeup, it's not easily possible)

Tyson beat:----Lewis beat:

Berbick------ Mason
Tucker-------Ruddock
Smith--------Tucker
Thomas ------Bruno
Biggs-------- Butler
Tubbs------- Morrison
Holmes------ Mercer
Spinks-------McCall II
Bruno I------ Akinwande
Williams------Golota
Ruddock I---- Briggs
Ruddock II----Mavrovic
Bruno II------ Holyfield I
Seldon------- Holyfield II
Golota--------Grant
Botha--------Tua
--------------Botha
--------------Rahman II
--------------Tyson
--------------V. Klitschko

As you can see, Lewis takes it on quality as well.

Now let's compare how they did against common opponents.

Ruddock - Tyson decisively beat him twice, once by premature stoppage the other time by decision. Lewis blasted him out in two rounds. Edge: Lewis.

Botha: Tyson just had a two-year lay off and looked messy; probably lost every round untill he found perhaps his career best KO punch during the 5th. Lewis destroyed him in 2, also with a beautiful KO. Edge: Lewis.

Holyfield: Tyson fought an excellent first 5 rounds, but the knockdown during the 6th seemed to turn the tie and he was not able to get back into it. Evander twice beat Tyson. Lewis on the other hand, realistically twice beat the bald warrior. Holyfield was two years older when he faced Lewis, but that doesn't compensate for the difference in results. Edge: Lewis.

Bruno: Tyson faced him twice and won convincingly by TKO in 5 and 3 rounds. Lewis struggled for the first three rounds but rallied to get the TKO in the 7th. Edge: Tyson.


Losses: Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall. He avenged both by every round-winning stoppage. Tyson lost to Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride. Many will say that he was old and unfocused against the last three of those, and he was, but why should that excuse him? Lewis was 35 as well, when he lost to Rahman. Just because he wasn't what he used to be, doesn't mean it doesn't count when adding up the career total. Lewis was much better in his 30's and this is in his favor. If you selectively cut out stretches of ones career that weren't good, then you're making a biased assessement.

In addition to that, Tyson hasn't avenged any of those losses while Lewis did.



So, as i've shown, Lewis has the edge in quality of opposition, quantity of opposition and did more favorable in the loss department. I don't see why Tyson should rank higher.

 

No. Tyson's "longevity" was interrupted by prison, but I consider him in the world's top 2 or 3 in 1996 up to 1997's bite fight. That's on top of a 1986-1991 run in top position or close to it.
Others will tell you he was a genuine contender for Lennox Lewis in 2002. So, whatever way we look at it, he sustained a high position for many years.

Lennox scores higher on longevity becuase he was among the major contenders every year from 1991 - 2003, but it was not exactly an unbroken run at the top. Personally I dont consider him number 1 for most of the 90s.

Lewis's "superior record against ranked opposition" must refer to a greater number of wins over nominally ranked contenders. But I discriminate. Some contenders are better than others, and I do feel confident making that judgment. A 261 pound Lionel Butler is an utter joke. Zelkjo Mavrovic had no business being world-ranked, IMO. Shannon Briggs coming off a gift win over a 47 year old Foreman. And when people pull names like Tommy Morrison and Ray Mercer out as being examples of how great 90s heavyweights were, I cringe.
The only Lewis opponent who was arguably superior to every Tyson opponent is Evander Holyfield. That's a great result on Lewis' record, but Holyfield had been slipping about 5 years, and of his last 8 fights he'd looked decidedly/worringly "old" in 5 of them (Both Moorer fights, Bowe 3, Czyz, Bean). Still, Lewis did well to beat him, Holyfield was still the world's best fighter and favoured to win. I wasn't overly impressed though because over two fights, Holyfield actually gained ground and Lewis failed to convert his reputation as a puncher into a KO or a KD or a brutal beating of Holyfield. On the other hand, it showed Lewis as a capable boxer.
Outside of the Holyfield win, Lewis's opposition is certainly no better than - (in fact, arguably inferior to) - Tyson's.

But I've had these discussions on here before. And I've gone into lengthy detail about the false assumptions that certain "90s heavyweights" were better than certain "80s heavyweights", and that Lewis's opposition was NOT particularly outstanding for the most part. And that relates to the two men he lost to especially, losses that I think are severe.

 

Lewis never beat a great "prime" fighter either. But few heavyweight champions have.