Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

I'm not sure if that was the best Ali we saw pre-exile, either way Ali fought a stupid fight, after that he figured out how to spoil Frazier's pressure

Its not Lewis's fault Prime Bowe/Holyfield ducked him and its not his fault Tyson circa '96 ducked him, regardless he beat all these fighters outside of their primes while being outside of his own prime (no he wasnt prime in 99 or 02 and yes hes beaten Bowe amateurs of not)

What do you mean Lennox didnt take care of everyone in his reign? Who didn't Lennox beat that he should have beat and who he wasnt himself ducked by?

 

Lennox proved victorious over Rahman and McCall. Frazier always stands in those mens shadow and a past it Ali and 1D Foreman aren't quite as good as everyone pretends, Lennox would beat both in a series

 

McCall and Rahman are far worse losses than anythig Frazier has. That we all agree on. Ali (even though it wasn't even the best Ali post-exile - but that's another story) is a better win than anything Lewis has. That we can all agree on.

But - Lewis showed himself clearly superior to a decade of fighters (1990-2000). The only one of real importance he didn't beat was Bowe (who ducked him) and perhaps Ike, but he was thrown in jail before anything serious happened.

Frazier only showed himself clearly superior to the crop of 1965-1970. Of the crop of 1971-1975 he is 1-2 against Ali, 0-2 against Foreman and 1-0 against Bugner. That's his record against the top fighters of those years (and here I'm being gracious including Bugner).

Sure, the best of 1965-1975 (Quarry, Patterson, Ellis, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Ali, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, Norton) is probably somewhat superior to the best of 1990-2000 (Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Ruddock, Mercer, Foreman, Tua, Briggs, Morrison, Bruno), but Lewis has a far better record here. Even with McCall and Rahman his record is better.

 

Also, concerning Ali-Frazier: In other cases, a popular analysis would have been that Ali learned from his mistakes in the first fight and subsequently performed better. There is a lot to support this.

But instead, the popular claim is that Frazier, who was younger and had a much less hectic schedule, somehow was burned out for their two last fights, and that the first one is the only one who really counts.

I call BS on this analysis. And since Ali after all is 2-1 against Frazier the burden of proof is on those who disagree.

 

Basically every fighter with Frazier's general style diminished at a relatively early age. Short swarmers don't last as long as tall boxers.


Ali is 2-1, but it's a very close 2-1. Frazier pushed him to the limit in every fight. It's not like Frazier was just being outclassed.

 

How can you say Lewis showed himself clearly superior to a decade of fighters (1990-2000) when he didn't face Holyfield in his prime and he didn't face Tyson in his prime, and he didn't face Bowe at all?

Granted, it wasn't Lewis' fault that Bowe and Tyson saw it convenient to fight people other than Lewis. But whatever the circumstances, we can't act like Lewis beat the 90-91 (or even 96) version of Tyson, or the 90-93 Holyfield or the 91-93 Bowe.

It is simply misleading to say that Lewis proved himself to be superior to the best of 1990-2000. The accurate thing to say is that Lewis showed himself to be clearly superior to the very good but ultimately second-tier fighters of 1990-2000. How Lewis stacked up to the best fighters of the 1990s is something we can speculate on but ultimately do not know.


Comparing what Frazier did against Ali in 71, 74, and 75 and against Foreman in 73 and 76 to what Lewis did against Holyfield in 99, Tyson in 02 and Bowe in 88 (as an amateur!) doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if a prime Frazier fought the 1976-1980 version of Ali.


Saying Lewis proved himself superior to the best of the 90s is almost as inaccurate as someone saying Larry Holmes proved himself superior to the best of the 70s (based on his wins over Ali, Norton, Shavers).

 

Correctamundo

 

All true.

The "Lewis is proven the best heavyweight of the 90s" is HISTORICAL REVISIONISM, in the purest sense.

 

Bad comparison. The Ali Holmes beat was in FAR, FAR worse condition than Holyfield or Tyson was when Lewis beat them. Holyfield and Tyson was also about the same age as Lewis. Holmes was eight years Ali's junior.

And besides Ali Holmes beat Shavers and Norton of the main players of the 70's. Lewis beat (besides Tyson and Holyfield) Ruddock, Mercer, Morrison, Tua, Briggs, Golota, Bruno and Vitaly along with some decent third tier names like Grant, McCall etc.

As I said, bad comparison.

 

I think it's fair to say that Lewis proved himself superior to the rest of the 90's. Yes, the Tyson he beat was clearly past his best, but actually a year younger than Lewis himself and very convincingly beaten. Since this is the best he have to go on, I think one can say with fair certainity that Lewis proved himself superior to Tyson.

It's less clear cut when it comes to Holyfield. Looking at how their fights went down and how few years separate them it would take a brave man to claim that Holyfield would win prime for prime, though.

Bowe is also less clear cut. But one indicator is Lewis' win in the amateurs coupled with Bowe's blatant duck of him later on. Another is that Lewis did better against common opponents (Holyfield and Golota).

Add to this that Lewis beat virtually all other players of that decade, and I think the conclusion that he proved himself the best of that generation holds firm.

 

I think you can agree the versions Lewis fought were far from their best though. That and not fighting Bowe, is proof enough to say maybe Lewis beat the best the mid 90's had to offer?

 

Ok. In that case it would be FAR off the mark to say that Ali proved himself to be the best of the 70's as well. He arguably came off worse in his series with Norton, arguably didn't prove himself better than Young and didn't beat Holmes.

 

He certainly has the best case for it.

1.Got ducked by Bowe and destroyed Golota in a single round who twice gave Bowe hell;

2.Twice beat Holyfield, who has the best case for being the best 90's HW outside of Lewis. Holyfield was past his best, but just came of two convincing wins over Tyson and avenged the Moorer defeat - which came during his "prime";

3.Got avoided by Tyson, but easily beat Tyson two years later and beat Holyfield who twice beat Tyson;

4.Avenged the only loss he suffered;

5.Beat the largest variety of top contenders.

 

By his own argument, Ali's questionable fights with Young and Shavers, and losses to Norton and Holmes probably don't count because he was past his best at that point.

Just like Holyfield's decisive losses IN THE 90's to Lewis don't count because Holyfield was past his best.

But Holyfield is still the best OF THE 90's. :huh

 

What does getting ducked prove if you didnt actually fight the fighter?
Holyfield was the same in 98 as he was in 92? Tyson was the same in 2000 as he was in 88?
Its more factual to discuss the best fighters he beat in their respective primes, and that would classify him as beating the best fighters of the mid 90's, not the entire 90's. There was a substantial transition around 94-95.