Not at all. Just a matter of semantics. I was going with Stonehands' differentiation between "all-time great" and "elite". Lewis is in my all-time top ten; just not in my top three or even five. Why? As you well know, especially at heavyweight you need an excellent chin lest you run into a bus, regardless of other quality tools you may have. Had Hearns had a better chin, he likely would have prevented his loss to Leonard. Had Ali had an unreliable chin, Shavers may have kayoed him with one punch when he was clowning early on and absorbed that massive right. Not to mention Holmes vs. Shavers. And on and on.
Yeah, a 240 lb depleted, slower, past it Mike Tyson which he probably should have disposed earlier in the fight. Tyson didn't have much to offer and Lennox looked politely scared, probably out of respect for whatever power Tyson had left. Lewis vs Tyson, prime for prime, should have happened in the early 90's but we all know what happened to Tyson after the Douglas fight. As far as I'm concerned, Lennox Lewis rounds out the top ten HOAT, behind Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. I have him ahead of Sonny Liston, but he's not top five. That's reserved for Jack Johnson #1, Ali #2, Joe Louis #3, Marciano #4, and Dempsey #5.
You can't just look at those two fights when deciding if Lewis is an ATG you have to look at his entire career. Archie Moore got knocked out in one round against Leonard Morrow doesn't stop him from being an ATG.
LOL. In denial. :-( Also I would like to add if ur saying the peak lewis was the one who I watched get outjabbed and outworked in a dead even fight by a 36 year old ray mercer, and who was unable to floor, stagger or establish dominance against a 37 year old evander holyfield in 24 rounds, perhaps hes not who we thought he was. I think Lennox looked most impressive vs ruddock, but hey what do I know. When lennox used his underated left hook, he was devastating. when steward made him go right hand crazy, he didnt appeal to me as much.
this is a poor example because archie moore had over 200 professional fights. lennox had just 43 fights.
There are examples of consensus ATGs with knockout losses to B level fighters in other weight classes. Tiger Flowers is one example.
If you want to go by win percentage, then I think its an excellent example. Moore, while having 200 pro fights as opposed to Lennox's 43, also had 23 losses and 11 draws. And not all of them were to great fighters, if that's your next approach.
Your comparison is fair. It's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Moore is top 20 all time almost inarguably - top 10 fo rme - whereas Lewis is a lot further down that list.
The double standards that are applied on this forum are some of the worst that I've seen anywhere. Fighters who existed pre-1960 are given a pass for having sometimes as many as dozens of losses, while a modern fighter like Lewis is highly scrutinized for two mere defeats, both of which to rated contenders and both avenged on top of that. It also seems to go unadressed that the guy creamed the living crap out of some 20 rated contenders and established a fair amount of dominance during his era.
False,false,false! losing to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman dose hurt but Lewis is still an ATG. Including the result of the rematchs he would be 39-0-1 (32).
So how do you explain his performance in his very next fight, ironically against Rahman? He wasn't peak, but so what? He was still at the top of his game when Rahman beat him. Same for McCall, and that's with Steward in his corner. Maybe Rahman was past his prime in the rematch. Yeah, that's it. Rahman was beaten because he was past his prime...:hey McCall was a blubbing emotional wreck when Lewis fought him. Excuses are easy to come by if you're looking for them. All this talk of prime this or peak that is redundant.
If you're number one in the world, or undisputed champion, then any LOSS that occurs IS fair game for much scrutiny. Lennox certainly deserved to have all eyes on his performance against Rahman, because of the position he was in. The Tua fight was one of his best ever showings, he was considered at the top of his game at that point. Against McCall the first time, Lewis was among the top 2 or 3 in the world for sure, and many say he was number 1 at that time. It is claimed by some that this Lewis would have destroyed Bowe and beaten Holyfield. Therefore, it's 100% fair game to point out he was beaten by McCall. Some people take the view that these "one-punch" defeats aren't as much as a serious blemish as a more dominant sustained trouncing, whereas others point out that Rahman and McCall didn't even have to put on any sort of "great performance" (ala Douglas v. Tyson, or Bowe v Holyfield) to deprive Lewis of his status. Both points of view make sense, it's just a matter of perspective.