Greater Resume: Lewis or Holmes?

Were you there? How could he lie using cold hard evidence and facts?

 

And like everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion :grouphug

 

Why do you think Lennox is better? Larry has more speed, stamina, agility, a better jab (a key factor), better chin, more heart and durability, and better recuporative powers. Lennox only has power, size/reach, and variety of punches on Larry. And the only reason he had more of a variety was because he threw them more.

 

Cold hard facts: King wanted him to fight Page, he didn't complain when King wanted him to fight Zanon, Cobb or Ocasio did he.

The WBC wanted him to fight his mandatory, which is supposedly a champion's duty.

 

The only reason King wanted him to fight Page is because he would get a cut out of both purses, and Larry wasn't going to have that. Also, isn't a week before another fight a bit short notice for a championship fight?

 

Didn't King get a cut of both purses for the Witherspoon fight- The Mallard had no qualms about taking that. :good


Oh, and that doesn't mean he had a 'week' to fight Page. If it did, Holmes, in training for Frazier would be at an advantage anyway. It entails that he could cancel the Fraizer fight and sign for a Page fight- it doesn't mean it'd have to happen the same night. :nut

 

Speed debatable. Agility debatable. When it comes to the jab I think this is debatable too. Heart is debatable. Larry did have the better chin and recuparative powers though but Lennox never got the breaks in the McCall I fight that Larry got against Shavers and Snipes. Both ATGs of course but Holmes did squeak by Witherspoon and was beaten twice by Michael Spinx, something that I wouldnt ever see happening with Lewis even on a sloppy day. Lewis has those 2 early losses of course which although avenged do show a certain vulnerability. If they ever fought it would be a pick 'em fight as I see both as very nearly the toughest match-up for each other.

Anyway, Lewis still has the better resume. Although he fought Holyfield and Tyson later than was desired, the only real major contender he never fought and beat was of course Riddick Bowe. And perhaps Witherspoon if we are being picky.

 

lennox never seemed to be the fastest of fighters IMHO.

 

Very true.

 

I disagree with point 2.
Norton was fresh off win over Jimmy Young, was considered the best active heavyweight out there by many, and the uncrowned champ, and his form over the previous two years was impressive.
He showed good form versus Holmes, in quite a hard fight.
Regardless of how he performed in subsequent fights, he looked near his best in the 15 rounds with Holmes and entered the fight with solid recent performances.

Norton's form going in easily matches Holyfield's triumvirate of a DQ win over Tyson, a TKO of Moorer and a pedestrian UD over Vaugh Bean in the 2 years prior to fighting Lewis.

Point 1 I agree with. Holyfield rates higher on an all-time list but the gulf in overall ability isn't massive.

 

Holmes Withoutb question.
I cant understand why so many people hold Lewis in such high regard.

 

Norton's recent win over Young was controversial; many saw it as yet another robbery for Young. Of course, Young was a very skilled fighter so there's no shame in losing there.

I think that many would agree that Holyfield was the better win.

 

Between mid 90's and 2003 you had Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali & Wladimir Klitschko.
Between the late 70's during Holmes' reign untill the mid 80's you had Holmes........................ and a lot of contenders who hardly remained consistent for a long period. Thomas and Witherspoon are probably the best of them. Holmes ducked Thomas and barely beat a green thomas, ducked the rematch.

I think even most of the people who were born around 1960-1970, who saw the late 70's and early 80's during lifeyears when they form their favorites (17-24 y.o.), will agree that the 90's was a better period for heavyweights than the late 70's/early 80's.

And yes, in Holmes' time the titles meant a lot less. And Holmes at one point was stripped of his only meaningful title to duck Page. Was gifted a belt which didn't mean **** at the time. You can't ignore these things.

 

Holmes, no question. Lewis is incredibly overrated. And Larry never got blasted out in a few rounds by B-level fighters. No, he actually got up off the canvas to win a few!!

 

I don't entirely agree here. I don't call it much of a "break" to get up in the middle of the round (not saved by the bell) while you are really hurt and have to face a murderous puncher like Shavers. Some will say at least he had a chance, that is better than being outright stopped but I'm not sure how well Lewis would have done in the situation. You can make a weak case for Lewis' stoppages not being legitimate but I do believe that if he was allowed to continue - he would have been stopped shortly. He seemsed to indicate overwise against Vitali at the twilight of his career - but that is my opinion anyway.

Usually I don't like it when someone says that Lewis had a glass chin or "if McCall could KO Lewis with 1 punch than so can..." or stuff like "those two losses forever tarnish him as an ATG." I don't entertain such arguments. However, in COMPARISON to Larry Holmes, RELATIVELY, those two losses to ordinary contenders really do look bad when comparing against a guy that was 48-0 near the end of his career and even if he did get knocked down, he fixed it up right there and then in amazing display. I don't really hold much water to the controversial losses to Spinks in 1985 but clearly a controversial decision loss to Spinks during the twlight of your career isn't nearly as bad as 2 KO losses to ordinary contenders during your prime - one of them that Holmes would go on to school later.

I definitely say Holmes had the better record.