The 90s was the 2nd Best HW era..shouldn't Lennox be a Top 3 ATG

I agree with this post. Lewis in many other eras might only have one or zero KO losses. Almost every decent contender in the 1990's could hit.

Lewis, Tyson, Foreman, Morrison, Moorer, Bowe, Hide, Ruddock, Bruno, Ibeabuchi, Tua, Briggs, Rahman, McCall etc.. All big time punchers.

And there is a host of guys on the next level that could punch like Mercer, Holyfield, Golota, Grant, Maskeav, etc...

 

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Mike Tyson
3. Rid**** Bowe
4. Razor Ruddock
5. Ray Mercer
6. George Foreman
7. Tim Witherspoon
8. Tony Tucker
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Michael Moorer

This is the Ring Magazine top 10 in 1991. And you still had guys like Bruno, Morrison, Holmes, Damiani, Cooper, McCall around. The 70s were NEVER this deep.

 

Lewis just fighting punchers means nothing. A lot of those punchers were not good boxers and were very one dimensional.

He was a very good technical boxer, very big, very tall and he knew how to protect the chin and given that he had all time great power himself, he didn't have to carry much fear.

Rematching the likes of McCall and rahman means nothing, its not like he rematched an ali, foreman or frazier, he should never have lost to them in the manner that he did in the first place.

Also Lewis main challenges ie holyfield and Tyson were horribly shot when he faced them.

Anyways my point is that lenni being in the top 3 is over kill. I dont mind him being in the top ten though.

 

When has it ever happened to the likes of ali, Foreman, frazier, Marciano? When have they ever been taken out with one big punch to the face unlike this girl.

 

His resume of wins I think is top five.

In terms of boxing ability, Lewis is also top 5-7

In terms of power, top 10.

In terms of size, top 3.

The fact that he was very big and could box means he can make them one dimensional like few could factor into my ratings.

I agree his chin is suspect vs punchers above Ali's level, but the rest of his game is excellent overall.

 

trouble is, you are quoting the 4 toughest chins in history.

why not name Louis?is he not number 2? Liston?

ATG HWs have got sparked out by very good fighters, it happens.

 

But this defeats the argument of lenni being top 3 if the excuses made for the guys that I am quoting is that they had atg Chins. Heck even holyfield and Tyson have warrior like Chins unlike girly lenni.

 

Not sure about his resume of wins because apart from beating a shot holyfield and Tyson, which atg great fighters does lenni have on his resume. His victory against Vitali was very suspect, controversial and the way he ran away from a justified rematch further diminished his standing in my eyes.

Its funny how Tyson and Lewis have so many common opponents but it is Tyson who gets accused of facing and beating bums while lenni doesn't face these question marks even though Tyson faced a lot of guys that lenni also ended up beating when they were younger, fresher.

 

Factually incorrect. Of his oldest top opponents.

Louis and Walcott were 9 years older.
Charles was only 2 years older
Moore was only 6 years older

Maybe you are thinking of Tyson.
Holmes was 17 years older
Spinks was 10 years older
Bonecrusher 13 years older
Berbick 12 years older
Holyfield was 4 years older

Or Holyfield
Holmes and Foreman were 13 years older
Qwai was 9 years older

 

Lennox has a legit case to be number 1.

 

I agree his win over Vitali is suspect, and he ran from the re-match.

I disagree if you think his resume of wins isn't decent.

Ruddock, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, Bruno, McCall, Briggs, Golota, Tua, and Rhaman are all good names. Several of the above were world title holders. When you add in Holyfield who had something left, and Vitali you've got a good resume. Better than most outside of say Ali.

If you can name five better resumes, I'd like to see it.

 

Are these guys all time greats?

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and much fresher versions, why does he not get enough credit for it and why do people mock him for just beating bums?

You have to be joking to suggest that holyfield was any where near his best against Lewis. Even then Lewis hardly beat him convincingly inspite of so many advantages he had.

 

Marciano was in his 30s.

Mike Tyson wasn't old enough to legally drink.

Most guys in their primes would've been at least eight years older than that version of Tyson.:roll:

 

I've always marveled at the 1991 heavyweight ring ratings myself and remember viewing them when the issue first came out on news stands. But while it certainly is impressive you also have to remember that this only accounts for a SINGLE year out of the entire decade. We also have to take into consideration that even though this top 10 was stacked with great names, many of them were well past their primes while a few others were still fairly green. It certainly doesn't reflect a group of stellar heavys in the pinnacle of their careers. That said, it was indeed a flagship year for heavyweight ratings. But again it shouldn't be used to measure an entire decade to the entirety of another.

 

Holyfield looked pretty good beating the living hell out of Mike Tyson twice and destroying Michael Moorer in their rematch.

Holyfield had most of the belts.

And Holyfield was the clear favorite at the time to win the unification with Lewis, who was considered overrated at the time..

So Holyfield didn't exactly suck when he fought Lewis.

You can't rewrite history just because he lost, and say he was awful going into that fight.