Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

Not to start an entirely separate conversation about Tommy " The Duke " but I agree with Unforgiven. Morrison was a media hype job. The nephew of John Wayne, and a recent villain in the ongoing Rocky movie saga. Yes, he did have real life power, but his record was horribly padded. In 1991, there was a pay per view showcasing of three young prospects - Ray Mercer, Bruce Seldon and Tommy Morrison.. Mercer, with only 16 pro fights, took on 27-0 Damiani for the WBO title. Seldon, with only 16 fights, fought the still durable Jose Ribalt. Morrison, with by far the most pro bouts of the three, took on a very ill-faded James Tillis. For anyone who doesn't know, fighting James Tillis in 1991 was about as meaningful as being the assistant to the assistant manager at a local movie theatre.

As Unforgiven already said, he was bested by men who were supposed to be easy wins and struggled mightily with guys who were well past it. Hell, an 8-8 Ross Purity may very well have been robbed against him. The Ruddock victory is blown to ridiculous proportions. Razor had fought all but perhaps once within a three year period, and still managed to deck Morrison enroute to what many believed to be a premature stoppage.. Had these two fought anytime circa 1990, Ruddock would have beaten Morrison in the exact same fashion that he bested Dokes. His battle with Truth was entertaining, but I'll never forget Carl decking him twice in round 5, before suffering a beating on the ropes a few rounds later...

Morrison was a fun fighter to watch, but he was never a world beater, and a victory over him can only be awarded so much credit.

 

About 24th.

Could also be ranked 1st.

 

Morrison was a hypejob but to a certain extent he deserved the hype, if not for his suspect chin. For a moment there he did look like a world beater against Ray Mercer until being brutally finished off when he ran out of stamina.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0vy7rI_67w[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTrHeFwu-mI[/ame]

 

Yes, I've seen this fight several times before.

Bert Cooper went 12 rounds with Mercer and left his face looking like a basketball, and Francesco Damiani had him outclassed for 9 rounds before a left uppercut saved Ray from dropping a one sided decision. Four months after the Morrison fight, a 42 year old comeback Holmes owned him.. Morrison's brief work against Mercer was no indication of world beatership...

 

No we dont know that and I dont agree with you.
Easy to use those excuses to detract from Tysons win. Holmes went on to perform very well and was never knocked out.
Floyd Mayweather just came off just as long of a layoff and looked spectacular didnt he? Did Holmes look bad or look like a fighter coming off a layoff, or was he just outclassed?
After Holyfield's win over Tyson and Moorer it kind of put things in perspective dont you think as far as what Tyson really was at that time, and where Holyfield was in his career? Holy argueably lost his next 9 or 10 fights?

 

Speaking of Yuri's balls, Tommy nailed him there more than once, out of shear frustration, because he couldn't spit on the guy for the entire first 3 rounds.

 

As I said, for a moment there he looked like a world beater (only for a moment, I didn't say he was), putting together some nice combinations, but rounds 4 & 5 indeed exposed that he was not worthy of the hype.

 

As far as ranked heavyweights go, Ray Mercer was nothing special either.
I dont buy into the "fluke punch" or "lucky punch" excuses ever, but if there ever was a KO worthy of the label it was Mercer against Francesco Damiani, where Mercer was lucky the punch "missed" and caught only the tip of Damiani's big roman nose, putting him on the canvas through the sheer pain of it. If Mercer's punch had connected flush, Damiani probably would have been okay.


Mercer elected to box a bit more later on in his career, and was a serious fighter against Holyfield in 1995, and did well against Lewis in 1996 despite being somewhat overweight again. Still, he's in danger of being grossly overrated due to those two losing efforts.

 

He was deemed as the second coming of Cooney, but frankly, I don't even know if he ever got there. Sure, he probably had a few wins such as his decision over Foreman and a TKO over Hipp that were perhaps marginally better than most of Cooney's wins. But, Gerry never lost to a man like Michael Bent or fought life and death with men like Purity or hasbeens. In fact, Gerry's losing effort to Holmes was quite possibly better than anything Morrison ever did.

 

Indeed,

Even though every punch Mercer ever threw was thrown with bad intentions, I don't think he had the slightest clue that he was going to break the other guy's nose. It was a hale marry shot.. And Damiani was clearly the superior fighter regardless of the outcome..

 

Here is the difference for me. Technicians, guys who could box quite well and had a real boxing pedigree and could mix it up a little more.

Tyson
Pinklon Thomas
Trevor Berbick
Mike Spinks
Tony Tubbs
Larry Holmes
Tyrell Biggs
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno
Evander Holyfield
James Douglas

Lewis
Frank Bruno already lost to Tyson
Tyrell Biggs already lost to Tyson
Ray Mercer
Evander Holyfield beat Tyson

Theres a clear void of solid technicians on Lewis record, and in my opinion thats more important than fighting a bunch of guys who can do little more than punch. Lewis also struggled a bit with a couple guys that I put on that list.

All these other fighters in my opinion can all be grouped together as being the same.
James Smith, Alex Stewart, Ruddock, Golota, Jose Ribalta, David Tua, Briggs, Oliver Mcall, Phil Jackson, Tommy Morrison, can all be classified as basically the same, technically challenged fighters, some with a good punch, but all lacking as well rounded boxers.
Point being Tyson ran through these type of fighters just as easily as Lewis, give or take a round here or there.

 

Holmes looked faded from 83-86 and you could argue he had 4 defeats to WIlliams, Spinks and Witherspoon in that time frame, then took 2 years old and got fatter. And in that time he ducked Thomas amongst others to fight Spinks and co. If your going to say Spinks/Holmes were as good as Holyfield you should also say Carl Williams was every bit as good a win as all 3

FFS neither Holmes or Spinks were ever in shape. Holyfield had been dominating 2 of the best HWs in Tyson and Moorer and was in the shape of his life and bigger and more roided than ever.

And the Mayweather example is more bull****, he was enar his peak before his left and the Marquez fight means nothing anyway, beating a man 2 divisions below you by UD isnt too impressive.

 

Frankly, I don't understand this logic that Holmes was considered as a good win for Tyson while Holyfield supposedly had " one foot in the grave " against Lewis. :huh

 

More bull**** bias, no mention of Vitali for Lewis, and some of the guys you mention for Tyson are laughable, are you telling me Rahman/Golota/Tyson werent as good technical boxers as half of these?

The styles of the fighters of an era are irrelevant, you could equally argue no Tyson opponents even showed up in shape, you could argue Tyson didnt face any big punchers, fought no one with a chin who even came to fight and so forth.

More wonderful bias listing Tucker for Tyson and not for Lewis, also interesting how you list 2 of the men who beat Tyson

Ummm and your saying Tyson ran through Rudduck as easily as Lewis? You're a joke