Your right mate :good, meant to say his was caught by a good punch, which can happen to anyone at HW All the same I think the Rahman loss had no impact on Lewis' legacy
I'm playing devils advocat here, but if an elite fighter turns up out of shape and gets sparked by a second rate fighter, why does that not effect what people think of him?
What about Ali getting beat by Leon Spinks? Hearns getting beat by Barkley? Duran getting beat by Kirkland laing? Lewis fought everybody that the public demanded and beat every single one of them convincingly. His losses are irrelevant he proved he was the better man by dishing out quality boxing in the ring. Calzaghe's 'consistancy' was aided by boxing no marks, fairly consistantly about 38 of his 46 opponents had no business been in the ring with him. Calzaghe could quite easily finished his career with two losses- Hopkins and Reid. Would he have got back in a knocked them out, doubt it very much. Regardless my point is that losses aren't as devestating as certain promoters would have you believe, its the wins that count. If Khan goes on to beat Hatton, Bradley and Shane Mosely do you think anyone is going to give a **** about Bredis Prescott?
What???????? I think people need to watch some tapes of Tyson pre prison he would have killed Holyfield, Holmes and Lewis on the same night at his best, so what if he carried on to long and was way way past his best when he fought Lewis Evander Holyfield was a very very good fighter but not a top ten of all time no way so calm down Lad
I don't think the losses effect Lennox's legacy that badly at all. Of course, they shouldn't have happened, but they were more a case of Lewis under-performing rather than getting beat because he wasn't capable. A case of Lewis losing than McCall/Rahman winning, if that makes sense. In a way, I think it may actually add to his legacy. It proved he could rebound strongly from a bad defeat and become a better fighter for it, avenging his losses to prove his superiority. The mental strength, heart and desire that takes are credible qualities to be considered, I think, when considering his ATG status. I'm serious when I say Lennox, at his absolute best physically and mentally, I believe is capable of beating any heavyweight in history. I certainly have him in the top 5.
I'm in the school of thought that the losses, well avenging them anyway, make his record and legacy better. They both show the mentality of the man, he didn't fear Rahman or McCall after defeat, he got back in with them and asserted his dominance. He beat all comers, he did it on his own terms, he had longevity. He had to serve a fair amount of time as the avoided man of the division, which he did, and eventually took his rightful place at the summit. In his pomp, he had he air of a great. I buy into that stuff. I've no agenda on the Calzaghe thing but he doesn't compare to Lennox as a fighter, in reality. Oh and I think the Klit win is probably his best, given how good Vitali has turned out to be, and given Lennox's age, it's a ****ing damn good win. As was his stoppage of Bowe in the Olympic final.
Oh yeah definitely, although a fighter of his ability should never underestimate an opponent like Lewis did.
So will you think more of Floyd if he loses to Pac then beats him in a return as oppose to turning up in shape and winning the first one? (Sounds like I'm being arsey there, but I assure you I'm not, just trying to understand your thoughts :good)
Yeah I know where you're coming from, no sweat. Let me try to explain a bit more clearly what I mean. It isn't that he lost that makes him any greater, it was how he came back. No fear, no loss of confidence or any doubts, but instead a far more invigoured sense of determination to dominate his conquerers and right the wrongs. Some fighters are never the same again after such crushing defeats, or at least find it very hard to get anywhere near where they were. Look at Roy Jones after the first Tarver loss, he was content taking a "moral victory" in just being able to last the distance! The great Roy Jones! (And I mean "great" sincerely as he is one of the best fighters I've ever seen). Just happy to go the distance. How saddening. Lennox came back and destroyed those who beat him (the McCall return was a little bizarre, but that was no fault of Lennox's or his attitude). That takes balls and a lot of character. Character we may not have seen if those defeats had never occurred.
So would you have thought less of him if he'd beaten them first time around do you think? Also, what if Castillo had been given the nod first time around against PBF? I'm genuinely intrigued as to why the losses don't damage him for the majority of people. I agree with the old adage that if you retire with an '0' chances are that your competition level wasn't what it should have been. However, looking at it from the other perspective, I don't think losing to mediocre fighters should enhance your reputation.
You've got to factor in that they were one punch KOs and in the heavies, it can happen. Not quite the same as if Floyd lost the decision to Castillo... The defeats count against him of course, but paradoxically they gave him the chance to show us more.
I don't think I would have thought less of him, I would still think of him as a great. I just think he was put in a situation to really show what he was made of (admittedly due to his own complacency), but when it really mattered, he produced the goods and shone whilst doing it. He produced the absolute best results he could given the situation. Again, it was not that he lost, but how he came back. As I mentioned earlier Jones didn't really pull it off, neither did Naz, or Tyson. All three of those examples were special fighters yet didn't have that special ingredient Lennox had to pull himself out of the **** in spectacular and glorious fashion. I'm just saying Lennox deserves credit for that, for turning around the worst and making it good. It's not something all fighters can do, even at the highest level.
:good Some people just cant win in this game. His losses dont mean a great deal to me in the grand scheme of things
I always think it's a lot better to have TKO/KO losses on your record than points losses when looking back as a resume. A Decision loss more often than not means you got outboxed outclassed. A TKO/KO just means you got caught a lot of the time. This is true in Lewis's case. He underprepared and got caught and paid the price. No-one outboxed Lewis over the 12 rounds. He avenged all the losses (I read somewhere that he avenged the amateur ones as well which is impressive) which is always a good plus on your Resume.
It never ceases to amaze me how over rated Holyfield is as a Heavyweight..and its based on heart and chin? comon He never had a period of dominance and lost far too often. 1-2 vs Bowe (could have been 0-3 if bowe wasnt such a fat arse) 0-1-1 vs Lewis (should have been 0-2) 1-1 vs Moorer MANY unconvincing performances including nearly getting stopped by Bert Cooper. Beating a post prison/weight trained Tyson doesnt make you top 10.