Devils advocate, Lennox Lewis ducked chris Byrd and John Ruiz

I felt he should have fought Byrd instead of signing to fight Kirk Johnson.

Things worked out ok when he ended up fighting Vitali Klitschko instead of Johnson, but I seem to remember Byrd was available and calling out for the match, and was holding the IBF title. He'd beaten Tua in an eliminator too.

But Lewis-Byrd would have been boring. Lewis-Ruiz would have been awful too.

Maybe Lewis should have fought them both though. Kept the belts together instead of dumping them.

 

I don't believe that either Byrd or Johnson stood a decent chance of beating Lewis. But it is a fact that they were highly deserving and available opponents who Lennox never fought. The reason ..... hmm.

Let me see....

Say what you will, compared to fighters of the seventies, all fighters of the nineties, including Lennox Lewis himself were slow and not as well conditioned. Chris Byrd (and to a lesser extent Holyfield) was the exception, particularly as far was speed was concerned. Possibly, Lennox did not want to be embarrassed by a small heavyweight like Byrd, however remote the chance. Come to think of it, a loss to Byrd would have delivered a terrible blow to the Lennox Lewis legacy.

John Ruiz's case is different. He was, and is, a "stink them out" type of fighter. I can't see at all how he would have created problems for Lewis. I am really stumped on this one. Maybe, Lewis just did not like John Ruiz.

 

I think it was more Lewis not liking Don King.

 

He probably would have strengthened his legacy a tad by fighting and beating those guys I imagine. I never really hear that much fuss being made of it though. Byrd's win over Vitali Klitschko was highly controversial and one that most people wrote off as being more or less a fluke. His win over a shot Holyfield came 3 years after Lewis had fought him for the last time, so I can't see the point in making a comparison there. He was destroyed in 1999 by Ike Ibeabuchi, then beaten by Wlad in 2000. Sure, an argument can be made that Lewis should have fought him, but its not like he ducked a solid contender for an extended period that was comparable to Dempsey's case with Wills.

John Ruiz needed 3 meetings with a washed up Holyfield, and in the end, still came away with nothing particularly decisive. He then took a disqualification win over Johnson, then got humiliated by Roy Jones.

I think the major issue should be weather or not the public really wanted to see these fights. The demand seemed to be in favor of Lewis facing Mike Tyson, David Tua, rematch with Rahman, and Vitali Klitschko. Most of those wins were better in quality than victories over Ruiz or Byrd would have been, and in almost all cases, were likely better paying and fan satisfying.

 

On paper, you could make a decent case for Byrd. He was ranked in the top10 in 2001, 2002 and 2003. However, Byrd has a horribly boring style and he lost every single round against Wladimir Klitschko, who is very similar to Lewis.

Lewis was stripped in 2002 for facing Mike Tyson instead of Byrd.
Tyson was ranked in the top10 since 1999 (!) untill 2002 when Lewis and him fought, and Tyson was always higher ranked than Byrd too.
That, combined with Tyson being undefeated for six years and being a much, much bigger draw to the public easily justifies picking him over Byrd.


As for Ruiz, Lewis was stripped for not facing him right after he beat Holyfield. Ruiz struggled with and never proved to be superior to a more deteriorated version of Holyfield than the one Lewis comfortably conquered twice. Instead, Lewis faced Grant and Tua (with Botha as stay-active fight) , both of which were seen as much more dangerous than Ruiz. In fact, Tua layed Ruiz out in 17 seconds. Grant beat Golota which is more impressive than anything Ruiz had done up to then.

After struggling with an aging Holyfield, Ruiz goes on to beat Johnson by DQ in somewhat questionable fashion, then loses one-sidedly to a natural lightheavyweight, and after that, Lewis retired, while having faced Klitschko , Tua, Tyson and Rahman, all of whom were at least as good as if not better than Ruiz.

The fact that most of the people recognised Vitali Klitschko, not Byrd or Ruiz, as new linear champion after Lewis retired should tell you enough.




Now, if you want to make a case for Lewis ducking Wladimir Klitschko then you have a much, much stronger one. Wladimir was ranked #6 in 2000, #1 contender in 2001, the #1 contender in 2002 and the #1 contender in 2003 until Sanders Lambasted him, something Lewis should've done.

 

Well, it took Ruiz only 19 seconds to "defend" anything against Tua... unless you meant Byrd -Tua, which I agree is a good win for Byrd.

Byrd won with Vitali decisively? Well, he was losing badly, and was more than lucky because T-800 had finally fallen apart. And, while none of them (including Lewis) met prime Holyfield, at least Lewis fought him in the right millenium. Not to mention that Ruiz trilogy finished (overally) in a draw.

 

who cares? it isn't important. what happened - happened. lewis fought the best fighters out there for 10+ years and did not duck anyone during that period. now he may have gone soft during his last 2-3 years - but you can't put him in scrutiny as great as you do if he was a peack champion e.g. 1999 who still had a lot to prove. this wasn't the case in 2000+. i'm glad lewis didn't take on byrd. in fact, i'd have criticized him at THAT point of his career. it would be as bad as foreman vs qawi. byrd could do NOTHING to lewis and the big man would just beat up on a defenseless person - like the way wladdy did (now wladdy i excuse because he wasn't undisputed champ - he was trying to resurrect his shattered career). lewis chose to take on a young, promising challenger in kirk johnson - i won't give him too much troube for it. in any case - these arguments are entirely inconsquential and pointless discussion (as the author himself denies the charge).

 

Partially true,

I remember as plain as it was yesterday, when Byrd beat holyfield, Larry Merchant was talking to Don King who was promoting Byrd. Merchant criticized king by flat out saying:

" I find it od that the one fighter who your man should be in the ring with happens to be the one fighter that you have no control over. "

-Larry Merchant-

 

This is very true, and a point that is not easily refuted. The speculation that a champion could have easily beaten a challenger does not rid him of his responsibility to meet his mandatory. Things get a bit dicey in more modern times though, with multiple alpha titles and each one of them having different #1 challengers.

Just as an example, I think there are better fighers for Wladimir Klitschko to be facing right now, but his newly acquired WBO belt, demands that he face Tony Thompson. If Wlad were to renounce the WBO belt in an effort to face Samuel Peter or Ruslan Chagaev, he would be taking on the better opponents and probably satisfying the fans at the same time. The problem is, 10 years from now a harsh critic could always find a way to turn his reluctance in fighting Thompson into a pure " ducking" rather than a decision to go after better men for a higher cause. Sadly, people will always take different angles on history weather their views are based on pure fact or not.

 

It does if he's not the highest ranked contender. Tyson was consistently ranked higher and Lewis fought him.

So, Lewis in 2002 should've said "Well, Tyson has the better resume over the last years, has consistently ranked higher and is the much more dangerous fighter considering i'm 35 and have a glass chin, but since Byrd will go on to do better things, i will fight him" ?

He destroyed Golota in a fashion that only Lewis did up until then and several years after. He knocked out all of his opponents.

It is evident on film and he was 38 and 39 years old. He wasn't in his prime against Lewis, but at least closer to it.

Not very convincing??? The first fight was a 9-3 decision at best for Holyfield, the second 8-4. How the hell is that not convincing?

Since when do boxers have a magic ball that tells them who is going to turn out to be somebody and who isn't?

Lewis beat him before Byrd beat him.

Why should i? You, me, reports of the time and everyone knows it.

Here is something boxrec to start with:
Lewis' sole weakness is his chin.

Tua has a sick KO percentage with a first round stoppage of Ruiz. Grant also has a high knockout percentage and stopped Golota.
Byrd has never knocked a contender in his entire career.

You have to be blind not to see how Byrd is absolutely no threat to Lewis while Tua and Grant were.

A boxrec hunter would think that Ruiz has a glass chin and therefore no chance against a huge puncher like Lewis.

But who gives a flying **** what a "boxrec hunter" thinks. You called me a boxrec hunter for pointing out Johnson's losing record against a fringe contender at the end of his days.

Ruiz fought Golota after Lewis had retired, this was not known at the time.

Grant stopped Golota, Ruiz barely squeeked out a decision which was doubted by many.

Yep, the same guy Lewis was going to defend against was not convincingly beaten by Ruiz. But in the end, he fought Vitali Klitschko, a much better choice.

Really? Post it. Because everyone, and i mean every single person, that i have spoken or seen written on the subject gave Jones no chance and it was obvious that Jones ducked his way back to LHW.

Yes they are. And i'm tired of this "debate". You are purposfully acting like a total ****** ignoring any facts that speak in favor of Lewis.

I don't know Peter Maher well enough.




Tell me when Byrd and Ruiz were the #1 contenders for six year straight against all the best opposition. Untill then, i'm not going to continue arguing this. You haven't refuted any of my points that Tyson was ranked higher and longer than Byrd and that Ruiz' resume was nothing to write home about between 2000 and 2002, compared to Tua, Grant , Rahman and Klitschko.