@Classics. If Lennox Lewis never losted. Can he be considered top 3 ATG HW?

I would just argue Holyfield was a meer shell of himself. The Tyson fight is considered Holyfields best win, but was Holyfield really even close to his former self when he defeated an overated Tyson who had proved little in his comeback? Holyfield went 2-2 before facing Tyson and looked pretty dreadful against Bobby Czyz. After the Lewis fights Holyfield won a close fight with Ruiz drew with Ruiz and lost 4 before going back to the club circuit. Point being Holyfield was not in great shape against Lewis. He might have been in that same clouded state of mind when he faced him but his skills at least in my mind were eroded pretty badly and the way Lewis fought him was pretty shameful. He came into the fight with a kidney belt pulled up to his chin and ran most of the fights. The greats make a statement with the old guards. Look what Tyson did to Holmes and Spinks and look what Bowe did to Holyfield in the first fight. Lewis should have made a statement with Holyfield and put him through the canvas like Toney and Byrd did.

 

My answer is yes. I already have Lewis right around #5 as it is. Take away the Rahman and McCall defeats, he's an easy #3.

 

It's hard to know where to begin with this post, Felix.

You've embarrassed yourself to a considerable degree here.

Perhaps you could best begin by re-reading the whole thread over again from
the beginning. Have a friend who can read at your elbow, for explication and guidance.

Repeat as often as necessary.

If you (successfully) reach the end of the exercise, you should have come to the following conclusion.


You started a thread, wondering if Lennox would have made top 3 ATG status had he not lost to Rahman and McCall.


I mentioned that I had Lewis at 3 or 4 WITH the 2 losses.
(Without the losses, I'd have him a definite 3)


Salty Trunks entered the discussion at post #11, stating that Lewis should be lower.

Salty followed this up by arguing the merits of his case with several posters, spouting some borderline vitriolic shyte about Lennox's career (missing Salsanchezfan' witty wordplay) and generally become more 'unhinged' with each passing post.

McGrain noticed said 'unhingedness' and commented on same at post #43.

The next several pages consist of a back-and-forth between McGrain and Salty, with Salty continuing to make bizzare (IMO) disparagements of Lewis' career, while McGrain provided balance and objectivity and DEFENDED Lewis and the legitimacy of possibly having him at # 3.


And at the end of that, you conclude that:

- McGrain knows nothing
- Probably didn't watch Lewis-Klitschko
- is biased
- is a secret 'Klittard'

I'm not sure which of these conclusions is the most laughable.



Final point.

Vitali took four rounds of the six he fought with Lewis, three fairly clearly and one closely. Klitschko was Lewis' best scalp.


Now, back to the beginning of the thread and begin again.

Concentrate !

 

The only thing that moved with Bolt-like speed was your edit of your original post.

You made your post at 2:28 today. It clearly quoted Mcgrain. I noticed it some FIVE HOURS later and made comment, at 7:16


Sometime after 7:16, you noticed your gaffe and made a very late edit in an attempt to recover. Even your 7:27 edit still looks a bit dodgy. :yep

Now, in the spot where

This content is protected

was, you edited to read

This content is protected

Who is ;13629192" ?



And then, you made not one but TWO responses to my post.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.



At any rate, if nothing else, you now appear to have grasped the essence of the dialogue.

Good for you !





Or was there another reason for your edit of your post upon reading mine ?:yep

 

Not getting in on the 'edit' argument - his entire post does make more sense when aimed at the other guy, not McGrain.

 

This is true, M'Lord.

That's why having it quote McGrain in the original post was so off the wall.

It's possible he just didn't know how to properly quote.

He admits as much when he says

I can only respond to what is posted. If that's different from what someone intended to post, then that is the root of the issue.

At any rate, all seems clear now and the confusion has been cleared up.





Now, back to the topic... before it gets irrevocably mislaided.

 

To rank Lewis in the top 3 amongst heavyweights would mean I'd have to rank him above Larry Holmes...

I don't care if he didn't never have losted or not... he isn't more better than Holmes did.

 

Without those 2 losses, nobody would say he had bad chin. Some would say he fought Holy when he was past prime and Tyson when completely shot, but I think it would be easy to make him top3 anyway.

Just look at Marziano's rankings... he wouldn't be even cruiserweight according to current standards and he fought no ATG close to his prime either.

 

Come on,top 3?Flattened by McCall and Rahman?Avoiding Tyson and Holy until they were past it?Up to those points Mercer was the toughest dude he crossed paths with-and he was life and death with him.