Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

Yes it is and why Lewis was the marquee fighter of the second half of the 90's and Holyfield the first.

 

No that's not what I said. If you read what I wrote, I clearly implied that:

1. Lewis' lack of marketability (which prevented him from getting some major fights) should be taken into account so as to not completely trash Lewis for not having been in many major fights throughout the decade

and

2. At the same time, we can't pretend that certain things happened (like Lewis beating the other top fighters of the 90s when they were reasonably close to their peaks, and being the dominant figure of the 90s heavyweight scene) when those things simply didn't happen.



Things don't have to be at one of two extremes. There is a middle ground.

 

Umm, I CLEARLY listed both Lewis-Holyfield fights in my summary of mega fights of the 90s. So I don't know what you are talking about. Please go re-read my post.

 

I agree with this.

I'm puzzled by the fact that some people on here downplay Holyfield's wins over Bowe or Tyson (which were HUGE when they actually happened) and act like the guys Lewis beat in the same general time period (take your pick: Ruddock, Bruno, Morrison, Mercer, Golota whoever) were bigger wins.

 

Lennox Lewis fans tend to be very sensitive to their fighter. I dont understand this phenomina, but its very real. Maybe its because of how dissed he was IN the early 90's? :blood

 

The case for Holyfield being number 1 heavyweight of the 1990s is strong, as strong as Lewis's really. But neither of them was clearly dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, both had to take the back seat at times to others, such as Bowe and Tyson, and even the likes of McCall, Moorer, Foreman ..... Bruno ! No real dominance or sharing of dominance, if you take the decade as a whole.

Holyfield entered the 1990s as number 1 contender to the undisputed champion, and arguably finished the decade as the same.
In the meantime he was the guy to hold the undisputed title for the longest period and most defences (2 years and 3 defences, in 1990-'92) and was linear champ too, twice, and partial champ, and would be my choice for number 1 HW in the world 1996-'97 or '98, arguably through to '99. He had his fair share of lows during the decade too. Beat every man he faced bar Lewis, but suffered a 1-2 deficit in the Bowe trilogy and dropped a close one in his dreary outing against Moorer (which he avenged, but still ....)

If you look at actual accomplishments against highly ranked opposition, Lennox Lewis wasn't even a legit leading contender until late '92, and got knocked off the top echelons two years later with a KO'd defeat to a mediocre fighter, Oliver McCall. His comeback opposition in the remainder of the 90s was patchy until he faced Holyfield and his performances mixed, but he did avenge McCall defeat (though not before Frank Bruno had thoroughly outboxed "The Atomic Bull") and he suffered no other defeat during the decade. And he did finish the decade as undisputed champ, on the back of beating an aged but credible and legendary Holyfield.
I guess a lot of it boils down to how much stock you put in wins over the likes of Morrison, Mercer, Golota, Akinwande, McCall and everyone's old favourite Shannon Briggs.

Anyway, it's all by the by when you accept that neither of them dominated the decade.

 

For the record, I didn't say Lewis "dominated" the decade, nor has anyone else that I've seen. I said he established himself as the "clearly best". And that was in comparison to Frazier, whom I called the clearly best of 1965-1970. I think that's pretty fair, but let's say Lewis just proved himselves the "best" of the 90's. I can live with that.

 

As far as I know CP and Magoo don't have Lewis as a particular favourite, nor is he of mine. We just call his accomplishements for what they are. Suppose you have a hard time relating to that, though. But just so you know, there are posters here who discuss for other reasons than to make excuses for their favourite fighters. Sounds weird, doesn't it?

 

But he didn't, that's the point. There's no "clearly" anything.
Beating Holyfield in 1999 doesn't make it so.
Lewis being the best of the 1990s is a lot less clear than Tyson being the best of the 1980s, for example, and even Tyson's claim for that decade isn't clear - because many have argued for Holmes there.

There's simply NOTHING clear about Lewis being "the best" of the 1990s. You can go through the decade year-by-year and if you're honest you'll reach the same conclusion.

 

It's revisionism, plain and simple,
They repeat this stuff so much they've convinced themselves it's true.

I think Holyfield's KO of Douglas is downplayed to a ridiculous degree too. Yeah, sure Douglas was out-of-shape, but it was an impressive 3rd round KO over the UNDISPUTED champion who'd just unseated an undefeated Mike Tyson. Douglas's condition should at least be balanced against the status of the fight and Holyfield's impressive (almost flawless) execution. That fight occured before Lewis had even broken into the rankings.

Golota's one of the shakiest, flakiest fighters you could imagine (couldn't even bring himself to get a win over the ready-to-be-taken Bowe, in two fights !) ....... but I cant fault Lewis' performance.
The Ruddock win was big - and impressive - but Ruddock was no champion.
I'll give Lewis all the credit in the world for those performances, he wiped those guys away. But the only win in the decade that could even begin to rate up with Holyfield's wins over Tyson and Bowe, is the win (or wins) over Holyfield himself, right at the end of the decade.

And while Holyfield lost more fights in the decade, he wasn't KO'd by anyone as mediocre as Oliver McCall. Even at his worst, fighting injured or some way in awful shape, in the first fight with Moorer, he made the fight very very close ....... and Moorer was a competent boxer.

 

I dont think Lewis ever suffered from a "lack of marketibility" in the 1990s.

In fact I dont really think he suffered much at all. He got the WBC title awarded to him once, and got selected to contest the vacant WBC title a second time (after losing it by KO), and he got paid big money as a step aside payment when Don King chose other fighters for Mike Tyson's schedule.

Anyway, there was no real lack of marketibility. He was a well-publicized and backed-by-TV prospect in 1991 and 1992 and a huge name in the division from his Ruddock win onwards. After beating Ruddock, no one can argue he wasn't marketable. He was, and he lived off that after he lost the title too.

Bowe's manager Rock Newman seems to have avoided Lewis because they wanted to milk the title, and because he had a beef with the WBC. They didn't want the Lewis fight - they wanted something easier - and they didn't care much about the WBC.

Lewis didn't get a fight with Tyson in 1996 simply because Don King couldn't get control of Lewis. It's not that Lewis wasn't marketable, nor that they were scared of Lewis.
Lewis actually made millions out of the situation and got what turned out to be an easy fight with McCall for the WBC belt. So, he did pretty well.

After losing to McCall in 1994 Lewis was actually re-instated as number 1 contender quickly.
If you look at the history, Lewis wasn't really jobbed out of anything in 1995 - '97. He ended up with a revenge win over McCall (who'd actually lost to Bruno in the meanwhile) and his WBC title back, AND millions of dollars step-aside for a title he ended up getting anyway !

 

And you're completely full of ****. :good You accuse me of not reading posts, yet you keep beating this drum that Im some Lennox Lewis hater, and thats not true. Im calling it the way I see it. You and others may disagree, but that doesnt mean you're right, thus the purpose of a boxing forum, to discuss opinions. It would seem someone who is completely offended by what I have say is taking something personal against a fighter they might like, thus the reason for your personal attack. I get way more thumbs up and personal messages from people who agree with me but are afraid to defend Tyson, Bowe or Holyfield, because of pricks like you and Magoo that take it to a personal level, calling people biased or what have you, when its simply an opinion. I know you have a problem with that.

 

Biased ! ^^^
:fire







:rofl

 

The same ready-to-be-taken-Bowe that Golota twice destroyed, had just knocked out Holyfield. Way to downgrade an excellent win.

You are right that only Lewis' wins over Holyfield compare with Holyfield's wins over Bowe and Tyson. However, you seem to forget that Holyfield has a 1-2 losing record against Bowe and only beat him when he was out of shape. This definitely makes up for it. You can make excuses all you want, but Holyfield lost to Moorer right after his peak win over Bowe. As for calling Moorer "competent" but McCall "mediocre"..... please, you're telling me that's fair? The Tua who Lewis easily beat, whom you called fat, unfocused or whatever, layed Moorer out in 30 seconds. McCall probably has the better resume and didn't kiss the canvas whenever he was hit. Both Lewis and Holyfield avenged those losses, and then squared off, and Lewis was the decisive winner in both contests. End of story.

 

Moorer was a two time champion, I think he was far more accomplished as a championship fighter, undisputed LH champion etc, than Oliver Mcall, who basically won the title with a one shot blast. Mcall was mediocre in the sense of a championship fighter, but not a mediocre fighter.
Now your saying Bowe was out of shape in the second fight?? Man I cant figure you guys out.
Moorer was way gone in the Tua fight.