is lennox lewis one of the greats?

All threads are the same to me yet i must admit i really enjoy Lewis threads as i followed his career from he was an amateur right through to the Vitali fight and have seen him fight live` on several occasions. so i feel i know quite alot about how his career unfolded. The rematch with Holyfield i simply cannot agree with you. i have watched that fight a few times over the years and Holyfield was the clear winner 7-5 staggering Lewis rounds 7 & 8 with Lewis doing absolutely nothing to justify him getting the decision.. There is a very good German commentary of that fight on Youtube which i suggest you watch and take the time to score the fight while watching as sometimes i score it 8-4 Holyfield.. Here is a link from the British Boxing Monthly about the scorecards.
BOXING MONTHLY - Article One - December 1999

 

OK.
We've been through this one before.
I don't judge fighters too harshly for losses that happen before they are established top fighters - or for losses that happen after they've fallen from the top echelons.

The age thing was just shorthand, as most people would acknowledge that Wlad started to peak sometime in his late 20s, and has had his best spell in his early 30s.

Carlos Monzon lost to Felipe Cambeiro on his way up, Liston lost to Marty Marshall, Dick Tiger lost quite a few .... etc.

It's different to losing a big fight for the world championship smack bang in your prime.

 

Well, if that's the case, what does the 1998 Purrity fight still tell you about the Wladimir we've seen in the last 5 years or his next fight ?

 

I think he's a different animal now almost entirely.
He's matured immensely. The Wladimir of the Purrity fight would probably have lost to several of the fighters he's easily defeated since.

 

Well, didn't Amir Khan go from the Limond fight "very weak chin" to the Maidana fight "good chin" in 3 years and 5 pounds ?

No, Wlad will never have a great chin, but he does take a solid shot now and then, from men who hit as hard as Purrity.

Yeah, he's no infighter. He's ten times the clincher he was though.
:good

 

Well, he's stronger and he paces himself better and doesn't run out of gas. He knows the distance.
Punch resistance depletes rapidly when you're weakened and tiring.

 

My point about the punchers, which is almost irrefutable, is that it's a lot easier to get sparked out in an era of dynamite punchers, especially in the one division that has no upper weight limit (and in which nutritional supplements have so advanced). The "marginal" fighters, like Rahman, still punch like a ton of bricks. And yes, I think Rahman punches harder than guys like Walcott, Schmeling, Charles, Williams, Norton... guys from other era's.

 

But you have to really go by how many times the fighters you nominate as "punchers" actually did "spark out" good fighters.

It's funny, on other threads I've seen you protest when someone says Ron Lyle was a big puncher, because he didn't KO enough caliber fighters ..... yet you offer up Gary Mason (who never KO'd a real good one, God rest his soul).

The point about marginal fighters and journeyman punching like a ton of bricks brings us to an awkward position of not knowing exactly who's the most dangerous man or the "hardest hitter" in theory. We should stick to talking about how good the fighters were, or how many good fighters they actually had KO'd.

You're probably too impressed by big bulging muscles too, but you've always had that (something you repressed violently for so long! )

 

Cool. Everyone has an opinion. I weren't saying you were anything mate, i was just pointing out that i only really see your name in Lewis threads, and you never seem to say anything positive about him and always seem to mention Wlad. Just an observation.

Not at all. Personally i think Lennox Lewis fans on here are the most comfortable with their man and his career, and criticism of him doesn't really bother them. Because there were used to it for many years anyway. So basically that's a **** post.