Another Lennox Lewis point of debate...

I think you sell Lewis a little short.

Firstly, you omit the fact that Lewis beat McCall handily in the rematch. McCall may have been an emotional wreck but he was for the first fight too and he won that one. Secondly, Lewis clearly won both Holyfield fights in my book with the first fight being a dominant shut-out. Thirdly, Mercer at the time of Lewis fight was probably the toughest fighter in the world. Lewis elected to abandon safety-first tactics (that would have won him the fight somewhat more easily) and get down in the trenches in an attempt to be fan-friendly.

As for the 9 fighters you mention I believe Lewis would win the vast majority of them by doing what he does best. Controlling the fight with the left job and making them cautious when they come inside with his power. If he fights their fights he's probably gonna lose. But if he fights smart he can win them all with the exception of the 1st incarnation of Ali. Please note that I said can and not will. There's a case to be made for Lewis losing against all those fighters too.

 

Lewis had so much difficulty with Mercer because of his slow footwork, and his unwillingness to back away from his smaller foe. Mercer is iron chinned, and was willing to walk through anything Lewis had to offer in order to stay close to him. The only way to have avoided that would have been through the use of good footwork.

I have always thought that Foreman beats Lewis head to head for the aforementioned reasons. On the other hand, I think that Lewis would give any version people want to talk about of Ali a tough time. Most think that the way to beat Ali is with pressure because of the Frazier fights. I'm not disputing that point, I just feel Lewis gets overlooked here because he is not that kind of fighter.

Timing is one thing that Lewis does have. His ko of Rahman is a brutal example of it. Lewis would also be the taller fighter with the longer reach. If Lewis stands in ring center, decides to make it boring(which he wouldn't mind doing), and makes Ali try to beat him by moving in and out; he stands a very good chance in a fight like that. I'm not saying I'd take him in the 60's, but I may pick him in the 70's.

 

If we want to determine how Lewis would do H2H against the best, I think both the McCall fights can be disregarded. I say this because of the fact that McCall was mentally unstable and also because Lewis is unlikely to show the bad technical form of the first fight against the best of all time. I won't go into the fact that Lewis may have been able to continue in the first fight.

My point is that much is made of the fact that McCall broke down in the 2nd fight and thus handed Lewis the win. I contend that the same thing would have happened in the first fight had Lewis not given him the opening to land that big right hand.

We don't want Zakman anywhere near this thread thanks. At least you seem reasonable.

 

I don't think the Holyfield II fight was that close; clear win for Lewis. The first one was won by domination. He was still an iron chinned fighter in that fight.

What about the Tua domination? Tua had an iron chin. So did Mavrovic. So did Tucker. They were dominated.

 

Right here friend! You have written an excellent post and made some solid arguments for why Lewis is overrated, beyond his getting taken out early by second-tier guys. And I would caution you with regard to the McCall rematch to not concede that point too quickly, for Lewis essentially beat up on a mentally-crippled McCall, fresh out of rehab, who shouldn't have been let anywhere near a ring that night. Lewis did what he had to, but he was not facing a McCall anywhere near at full mental strength, nor anywhere near close to his focused performance in their first fight.

And, to those who question the "reasonableness" of the perspective of Lewis critics, I simply say that this depends on one's perspective. The uncritical Lewis worship that seems all so common on this forum looks pretty damn unreasonable to some of us!!:yep

 

McCall was a glorified sparring partner with a "puncher's chance", who cares if Lewis dominated him ? McCall was an absolute plodder, a well-conditioned bruiser of limited skill. Frank Bruno dominated him too, and a flabby old Holmes went the distance in an embarrassingly close fight.

 

Lewis deserved to win both fights against Holyfield, but I hesitate to call either a domination. Evander stood toe to toe with him for most of those rounds, even though he never really gained any ground on him. Also, as Hudson pointed out, this was a version of Holyfield who was well past his best. I won't even begin to argue that he was close, just because of his performances against Tyson which by the way were 1.5 to 2 years earlier.

 

Well, I would argue that McCall was not at full mental strength for the first fight either. He was crying before that fight IIRC. Hardly the posture of someone who is mentally focused and fit. McCall beat Lewis fair and square, though I'll still argue that the ref did Lewis no favours. If you're going to use the 'McCall not mentally fit' card for the 2nd fight, use it for the first fight too. IMO there was a very real possibility that McCall would have eventually broken down in the first fight too had he not gotten that right hand home.

 

Yeah well what you're doing now is confirmation bias. You select only those fights that suit your train of thought and dismiss others, while Tucker, Mavrovic and Tua certainly had iron chins.

As i said before, he didn't struggle with Holyfield in the first fight, the second was a clear decision despite fighting Holyfield's fight, the Mavrovic fight he won 12 out of 12 rounds, against Tua he won 12 out of 12, against Tucker he won nearly all, McCall knocked him out one time, but was dominated in the rematch (in which he still had your iron chin). It's true that he struggled with Mercer though - he tried to go for a knockout to impress for a Tyson fight and fought a stupid fight... still, he pulled out the win.

This kind of reasoning does not hold.

Ali was knocked silly by 180lbs Cooper. So what if that was a 6'5 245lbs Lennox Lewis?
Holmes was nearly decapitated by Shavers, who had a glass chin, horrible skills, no stamina and regularly lost to journeymen. What if that was Lewis in front of him? Douglas beat the **** out of Tyson, Tucker and Ruddock (who Lewis Ko'd in 2) went the distance with him. What if that was Lewis?
Liston quit after 6 rounds against a light-hitting heavyweight. What if that was Lewis? Marciano was knocked down by 190lbs Walcott who was not aggressive by nature, but still ahead into the 13th. What if he fought Lewis?

I think you get the point.

You can take fights from every fighter, then fight a similar fighter that is better and say "so he beats him as well". It's just not that simple. If it was, then Ali should've been knocked out by every puncher with a good left hook and less cut susceptibility than Cooper. Clearly, he was not.

If there wasn't much to choose between them, then why did something like 80% think Lewis won? And that includes American opinions, who had Holyfield as their favorite, didn't like Lewis, etc. There was a topic on this in the general forum some time ago. Of the few that had Holyfield winning, there were something like 3 who posted a scorecard, and neither of them could agree on which rounds Holyfield won. :rofl That should tell you enough.

 

That's a fine post Chris, really excellent. :good

 

......

 

You'll have to excuse my throwing in my two cents, but some of your rebuddles to Nick Hudson require a bit more explanation, and nor am I trying to turn this into a Lewis bashing session. I also understand your points about Hudson saying " what if it were an all time great fighting Lewis instead of McCall or Rahman", and your attempts at trying to refute them.

First of all, Ali was 21 years old when he fought a 28 year old Cooper, and he had maybe 19 pro fights, wheras Cooper was a seasoned veteran holding a continental title. Lewis did not turn pro until the age of 24, and after having fought in two olympics. Plus, he was around 29, and had numerous fights, including some very big wins before being dusted in two rounds by Oliver McCall, whereas Ali at least won his fights with Cooper. Sure, a peak Lewis may have beaten a green Clay, but the same version of Cassius may also have beaten the Lewis who battled with Gary Mason for all we know.

For heaven's sake Chris, Shavers was commonly deemed as one of the hardest right hand puncher's of all time, something that neither McCall or Rahman can claim. Holmes at least survived Shaver's best, wheras Lewis could not withstand the punches that came from McCall or Rahman the first time around. As for your claim about him losing to journeyman regularly, Earnie had not lost to a mediocrity in years prior to fighting Holmes, and while your logic is that Lewis was a much better fighter, Lewis and Shavers had little or nothing in common.

Tucker was 35 years old when he went the distance with Lewis, and only 28 when he took Tyson the stretch. This comparison hardly does Lewis any justice. Ruddock and Douglas fought Tyson after King had gotten rid of Rooney and Tyson's personal life was on the highway to hell. Don't blame me for making references to Tyson being out of a good trainer. Lewis fans do it often enough when it comes to claiming that he lost to McCall because Manny Steward wasn't in his corner yet. Tyson was also much further past his best than Lewis when they actuall fought in 2002. Tyson managed to Rock the shot out of Lewis in the first round before going on to losing. One could just as easily say, " what if that were a 1987 Tyson in there?"

Yes, I'd pick Lewis to beat any rendition of Liston. No argument here.

Actually, Joe Walcott was closer to 200 Lbs, but your point is well taken. Lewis should be favoured here.