Who'd Win Lennoxx Lewis or Sonny Liston ?

You're throwing out Manny's opinion on Lewis that night because he bigged up Taylor?

I completely agree. What is your point though? You seem to think that i'm saying Lewis deserved to lose these fights or something? I'm saying nothing of the sort and you really don't have to get upset. What i'm saying is that in the Tyson fight, Lewis didn't show any tactical flexibility. You seem to disagree. You're saying he didn't have to do so to win the fight. I agree.

:roll:

Lewis - one of the best composite punchers in the history of his division with the ability to ko even a granite chinned fighter who is ready to be taken.

Winky Wright - not.

The difference is blindingly obvious.

"Never really in any danger whatsoever."

He was on his way to a points win of Rahamn when Rahman KO'd him. I am sure he would have boxed his way to a decision over McCall had McCall not sparked him. No opportunity really exsisted to ditch either of these two earlier than they ditched him, I don't think. On the other hand. Boxing history is full of stories of fighters who knew they weren't conditioned enough for 12 good rounds who attacked at the opening bell in view of scoring a KO.

Anyway, to say that Lewis, sparked twice by guys far less dangerous than Mike Tyson was "never really in any danger whatsoever" when fighting him is, frankly, laughable.

Correct.

The point - he showed less flexibilty than Sonny Liston would have in his place. This is almost certain given the ammount of flexibilty Sonny showed in similair situations. Lewis may be amongst the least flexible of the great champions, actually.

Just because he had a winning record, it doesn't make analysing his traits as a fighter invalid, especially when you put him in with some of the best fighters in the history of the sport. But for what little it is worth, you are right. He did what he did very, very well.

Where? Where have I done this, exactly?

That's exactly what i've said, I believe. Where did I say he was a genius, please?

But better than Lewis, who you seem to think is some sort of God, beyond criticism

 

And that's your problem. You seem to think that the win in any given fight describes the strategies. It doesn't. There are losing efforts that have seen brilliant strategy and winning ones that have been ****.

No. But I do think that making losing rounds difficult to score was a part of his MO, as it was for Ali, another great strategist before him. Hollyfield drew, so his strategy must count for something, right? Or is the rule of the result just for Lennox?

I didn't say this. I can see that some of the stuff i've said has upset you but it would be better if you didn't make things up, save both of us time.

 

No. This idea that you only change tactics in boxing when you are losing is not accurate.

Liston set out to knockout Williams, the most dangerous puncher he ever faced, very quickly specificically because he was such a danger. He changed his fight plan during the fight because he sensed that it was possible to do so, and he was correct.

This is the type of thing Lewis could have done against Tyson and didn't. It is not "showing flexibility for the sake of it" it is scoring an early KO to prevent possible disaster. Now, there is an argument that Lewis needs to box more to protect his chin, and that is valid. But it is NOT the issue. The reason this subject (unfortunatley) came up is that the Williams fight and the Tyson fight have an exsisting parallel that illuminates Liston's superior flexibility in the ring. Both men have the opportunity to abandon the original fight plan to KO a slipping opponent early. Only one of them took it.

Maybe you are right and Liston was an idiot for taking his opportunity, and Lewis's tactic was the correct one, but that is not my position.

I agree with this. I think the least risky strategy against a knockout artist who is ready to be knocked out is to knock the knockout artist out.

Do you think Tyson posed Lewis a greater risk in round 9 or round 6 of their fight.

"There's no way this man should be in there this long" - Manny Steward.

No. My point, as clearly demonstrated in words, is that Lewis showed tactical inflexibility in this fight.

I know that. I'm not debating the Rahman loss here with you. What I'm saying is that Rahman stopped him with one punch. Therefore claiming that he is in "no danger" whilst in the ring with old Mike Tyson is a pretty stupid claim.

But regrdless it's another decent example. Ali knew he wasn't going to be able to do the full fight in Zaire so he tried to KO Foreman in the first round. Then he became immobile because he knew he was out of shape and would be exhausted.

Lewis did what he always did, and paid.

If Lewis had KO'd Rahman in rounds 1-4, which I believe he had the physical tools to do even in his depleted state, he would have won insted of lost, obviously. He didn't have the tactical flexibilty to go in and chase the KO.

Maybe this is harsh and he actually didn't understand his conditioning and position until it was to late, but this seems unlikely to me. He tried to fight the same reticent fight he tends to go for if opponents would allow it. Tactical error in my view.

I doubt he would have ko'd McCall though!

So either - he would have won a points decision, lost one, or the stoppage loss was inevitable.

I believe if he hadn't been stopped he would have won that fight on points.

...okay.

Undoubtedly. This came up because someone claimed that Lewis would be to smart for Liston, which I contested.

They do it all the time.

Well, obviously.

Lewis had a losing fight plan against Bruno which he did not change.