Better top 5 wins : Lewis vs Holmes

I think Holmes and Lewis might be 15 a piece in wins against ranked opposition.

 

Lewis takes it fairly clearly IMO. Just fought in a better era.

 

Lewis just has a better selection of opponents to choose from for his top-5. I mean, there could be a debate about which fighters go into Lewis' top-5, to start with.

Holmes, less so, but neither did he fight a line of cans. He has some solid wins on his ledger, just not against too many guys who could sit alongside or replace Lewis's upper-tier wins.

 

Ok, so go ahead and name all the other 38-year olds that beat someone that would go on and have a better career than Vitaly had. You must have lots of them.

 

And Holyfield looked lackluster vs. Vaughn Bean. And Jimmy Young was a better-quality opponent than Bean.

 

Bean is a spoiler though and hard to stop he was only stopped once in 59 fights by Vitali whilst being past his best Holyfield still won the fight fairly handily.

What are we discussing ? You think Norton was in better form than Holyfield hence it was a better win ? Well apart from the Bean fight who is a spoiler as i said, Holyfield was coming off two of his best performances vs Moorer and Tyson, and was the ranked number 1 Heavyweight for 3 years. Norton as I said won a vacated belt in a highly controversial decision to Young.

I think based on resume of both fighters and how they were perceived at that time it has to be clearly Holyfield as the better win.

 

Hmmm, interesting, challenging post. I’m not sure I agree Holyfield by 1999 was better than 1978 Norton, in fact, I know I don’t. Both were indeed past their best (Holyfield moreso), but you make a good point that Holyfield did have more impressive scalps than Norton at these stages of their careers.

But then I consider Holmes had to overcome a terrible style matching with Norton, while Lewis was a much bigger man with power & range advantages as well as being at his absolute peak. It’s a good debate.

 

Straw, meet Man. What great career, precisely? Klitschko inflated it within a putrid division but it holds up to no scrutiny. That’s before we even get into how ordinary he was as a fighter. Maybe you haven’t watched his full fights. Highlights, perhaps?

“Massive win” implies a great opponent. I would argue Klitschko isn’t even a good fighter - merely competent. His career belies this due to opposition standards, not any of his modest abilities. Even so, he still never became champion of the division in a career which lasted what, fifteen years or so?

To imply Lewis’ age was some kind of major obstacle when his prime is widely regarded as between 1997 & as late as 2002 in some eyes (certainly no later than 2001) is dishonest. He was out of shape for the fight more pertinently, & this could be used both for & against him as one pleases.

If we’re talking legacy here, Lewis beat the wrong Klitschko. Vitali was great at getting punched in the face, but that ain’t talent. Wlad got the actual ability in that family.

 

Wlad has a vastly superior resume to Vitali.

Their performances against common opponents doesn't support your view that Wlad was a whole different level of fighter, though.

Even if you disregard their respective performances against Sanders, on the basis Wlad got better, and tbf he did, a 37 year old Vitali was more dominant vs Peter, immediately post a hiatus longer than Ali's whilst being 8 years older than the comebacking Ali, than a prime Wlad was in either of their fights.

 

So all this text and not one name? You need to come up with some or shut up presently.

If 38 is too unique, how about last fight after a long pro career? Just one of the last even.

 

Lewis.

 

I’m not calling Wlad a great fighter. Just that he got the lion’s share of ability. He was good, certainly very beatable, but absolutely the superior brother. Not great either, though.

 

I answered - that the point you’re making isn’t a strong one & why. I addressed the age.

 

And I just gave you more leeway, but still you come up with nothing. You're really shitting the bed here.

Ageing champions with one eye on retirement against a fighter that will be one of the main ones of the coming generation is also a fitting comparison.

There you have for example Dempsey-Tunney (even though Tunney didn't stick around for very long), Louis-Walcott and Wlad-Fury. Dempsey and Wlad both lost and Louis should have according to most observers (his rematch win is a great one, though, and probably his best). That is usually what happens and that's what make Lewis's win so great.

But, again, if you have many more examples please supply them. Or have the dignity to shut up and go away. Personally I would have done so just after writing "LOL" in a post - we're not on ****ing TikTok - but this certainly is the line,

 

Wlad had the lions share of ability in terms of explosiveness and fluidity.

Vitali did when it comes to stamina and punch resistance.

Wlad's resume is the vastly superior of the 2. His reign was one of the most dominant, in terms of both longevity and the huge gap between him and the best of the rest of the field, and the most dull, in history, so his "greatness", or otherwise, depends to a large degree on criteria.