Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

More biased bull****!! Really please enlighten me what makes Tubbs, Tucker, Biggs and even Bruno had either Morrison. Who did Carl Williams ever beat who trumps Rudduck/Foreman?? Yes you are biased against Lewis, pretend if you want your objective but Lewis proved to be the number 1 from 1991-2003, over some of the greats, beating every man he faced, beating the next great HW champion, Lewis is a rare breed of domination.

 

I agree. Middle to back end of top 10.

 

I would say that a lot of great fighters do not have an outstanding great win.

What is Larry Holmses best win for example?

 

Your a fool or biased or both, Rudduck has better skills than most the men you listed, you listed Alex Steward at the same level of Rudduck, you claimed Tyson handled Rudduck aswell as Lennox. Either way Lennox's resume is to fight every man from 1991-2003, beating them all, most emphatically, including the next great HW, few can claim that

 

All you need to remember lefthook31 and unforgiven is:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You're just as entitled to your opinions as everyone else here, but let's be reasonable. Do you honestly think that anything that Alex Stewart ever did compared to Andrew Golata's thrashing of Riddick Bowe on two occasions. Do you really think that his fringe contender status amounts to the claim of being a world champion like McCall or Briggs? Stewart had heart, but he was a mediocrity with the connections to get good paydays in losing efforts.... That's it.... He was a James Tillis sort of fighter, whereas men like Golata, Briggs, Ruddock, Tua and all the others that you listed weren't....

 

Bowe was a shell of his former self. Billy Zumbren almost gave him a similar type thrashing. We can throw Mike Grant and David Tua into that group too.
My point is, those guys still equate to technically challenged fighters, bigger stronger yes, but still on the same overall skill set level. Bigger stronger proved to be a none factor with Tyson until later in his career. Savvy boxer always was a factor with Lewis.
As far as comparing Briggs to Stewart, would it be possible for Stewart to win the title and be called a world champion by knocking a guy like Lyahiovich out in the 12th round after trailing on the cards the entire fight? Comparing Stewart and Briggs fight using Foreman as an example, would lead me to believe so, especially considering more people felt Stewart beat Foreman as opposed to Briggs, who most people felt lost.
Holding a title means little, and the top contenders of today and the mid to late 90's were comparable to the second tier contenders of the mid 80's to early 90's in my book.

 

Well the Klitschkos are doing the same thing. I guess they will be marked up somewhere in your top 10 once they get done getting knocked out and avengeing their defeats against similar fighters, while never being in a real fight.

Sorry, the last decent era in heavyweight boxing ended in 1994, and the garbage that has come after, has only enhanced the eras prior. Lewis by no fault of his own came to the dance after everyone else went home. :nut

 

Was Bowe faded? Yes.. A shell of his former self? That's a bit of an exaggeration, and still pounding a 1996 version of Bowe, trumped anything that Stewart ever did.

You do realize that Bowe fought Zumbrun a full NINE YEARS AFTER he faced Golata don't you? Or do we have to start a whole separate argument about why this is an important little tid bit.

As being better fighters than Alex Stewart? Absolutely...

No.... Just because they were all limited in their technical abilities, doesn't mean they were all the SAME. There are many levels of skill and physical ability. David Tua, Michael Grant, Andrew Golata, Razor Ruddock, Oliver McCall and several others, were all several steps above stewart in this regard.

Really? Tucker, Smith, Ribalta, Green and Tillis all gave him at least 10 rounds or more. Bruno had him staggered.. Douglas had him beat and Ruddock took him a combine 19 rounds, plus had him stunned a few times as well.. Now, I realize that he was only 19 years old when he fought Green, Tillis and Ribalta. Tucker and SMith weren't fighting to win, and Douglas fought Tyson when he basically had his head up his ass, but the point is that it didn't take until LATER in his career for Tyson to struggle with bigger men. He had problems with them at all levels of his tenure as a fighter.

Given that Stewart was KO'd by a 10 fight Maskaev, and a man like Craig Payne, I don't know if he'd even get past Lyakovich, so the point is rather moot.

People who have never seen that bout base their assumptions on the pictures of Foreman's face after the fight. Anyone who actually WATCHED the match from start to finish, would agree that Stewart deserved little more than a mere pat on the back for a good effort.....Nothing more... In addition, comparing results against one common opponent doesn't warrant labeling two fighters as being the same. Jose Luis Garcia and Muhammad Ali have the claim to having both lost to and beating Ken Norton... Are we going to place them in the same column as well?

That is for whole different debate, and frankly has nothing to do with weather or not Alex Stewart sizes up well with the fighters that you claim he does.

 

Let me rephrase it then, who did a bigger number on Foreman? Who lost to Foreman worse, regardless of the official outcome? Its not about Stewart anyway, its about his boxing style, which was closer to Shannon Briggs, then Tony Tucker dont you think?
As far as Tyson, going ten rounds with Tucker and Smith and losing a UD, is not the same as going life and death with Ray Mercer.


Theres a reason why guys long after their best like Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson and George Foreman were capable of competing at what was the world class level and what was basically the same class of fighter Lewis legacy was established on. It wasnt because they were still as sharp as they were in their primes, but because of the technical shortcomings of the division.
And yes there is many levels of skill sets within certain styles, and styles is my main point. The overall style of fighters clearly changed and it wasnt as effective.

 

You see things how you see them, and I see things how I see them. I don't think its worth either of our time to debate any further why Shanon Briggs was a better fighter than Alex Stewart.

 

atsch Thats the problem, the way you see it

 

And yours...

 

You dont have to erase what you originally wrote. Dont take it back, let the true ignorant Magoo come out. I know you cant help yourself. Gotta drag as low as you can. Your ignorance is why you cant understand my point about Alex Stewart, it had nothing to do with who was the better fighter, but boxing styles, something you cant see, and the reason you get frustrated and have to start personally attacking me. Bye bye...:hi:

 

Since when was Tua a technically poor boxer? He's actually technically very good, just a short ass with a short reach. I see him causing far more problems for Holyfield/Tyson/Bowe than he ever caused Lewis, mainly because of styles and those 2 loving to mix it up. Tua probably should have been unbeaten at the time and arguably should have a decision over a much bigger, stronger better version of Holyfield in Ibeaubuchi, who was prime.