Holmes or Lewis?

Personally I consider Holmes clearly above Lewis.

Depending on how I order the other great heavyweights, I cant say for sure how many places Holmes goes over Lewis, I just reckon he should rank higher (on MY list).

Where Tyson and Holyfield go in relation to them is more problematic.
I've argued the case for Holyfield above Tyson for ages - with a firm belief that Holyfield beats a prime Tyson.
However, as underrated as I think Holyfield is, I am becoming swayed that Tyson's dominant peak run is something Holyfield could not have replicated (though Holyfield's run from 1989-92 is pretty good too). So Tyson can be rated above Holyfield, though not necessarily.
The thing I wonder is - should Tyson be rated above Holmes (and therefore Lewis) ?

The problem with Tyson though is he got the **** kicked out of him by Buster Douglas.
But when I watch him against Berbick, Spinks, Carl Williams, and then look at what Holmes looked like against same opponents, I am tempted to believe Tyson might actually have been better than Larry.
Holyfield is Tyson's kryptonite, IMO, but I'd' almost certainly rate him below Holmes.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

 

I think a fair argument can be made for Tyson being ranked above both Holmes and Lewis. Tyson's wins over Thomas, Spinks, Tucker and Ruddock are arguably better wins than any Holmes ever had, and lets not forget the legacies of unifying the heavyweight crown and being the youngest champion in history. Also, I can't think of any ranked fighters whom Tyson did not agree to fight. He had cleared out an entire division and signed to fight Holyfield before being upset by Douglas. Holmes failed to fight not one, but at least 4 good fighters during his era, and was even stripped of a title for doing so. Thank goodness the IBF came along, and was all too desperate to have a named fighter holding thier belt. Sure the Douglas loss was a bad one for Tyson, but Holmes was arguably gifted some decisions that could have gone the other way. I also dare say that we don't even have to compare Tyson's title fights against Holmes' to rule in favor of Tyson. Even some of the men that Tyson faced post prison like Golata, Savarese, Seldon, Bruno, Nelson and Botha were no worse than some of the men who Holmes defended his title against like Frank, Evangelista, M.Frazier, L.Spinks, Rodriguez, Bey, Zanon, Ledoux and god knows who else.

Tyson suffered a horrific ass kicking against Douglas, but one could argue that Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman were as bad or worse. I suppose Lewis was a work in progress against McCall while being past his prime against Rahman, but similar arguments could be made for Tyson upon losing Kevin Rooney. I mean let's think about this, you can't defend Lewis by saying that he had not yet hooked up with Emanuael Steward, and not make the same concession for Tyson who lost a great trainer in Rooney. Not to mention, Lewis never lost 4 years of his career to a jail sentence, nor had the kind of turbulence in his life outside the ring that Tyson had.

Overall, I'd rate Tyson over both Lewis and Holmes, even though most people wouldn't. Unfortunately, I think Tyson's tremendous accomplishments from the 80's have been overshadowed and even forgotten through his criminal controversy, and bad media slanderings. I've noticed that a lot of posters here, have done everything they can including rewriting history to discredit the guy. It goes to show you that being great at what you do isn't everything.

 

I happen to believe national idiosyncrasy had a hand in the Lewis stoppage.

Referee Jose Guadalupe Garcia is from Mexico, and Mexican officials have always had a more humane viewpoint on stoppages, one I happen to believe right and, over 90% of the time, no result changer.

First of all, I remember Holmes to be staggering about after falling to Snipes, yet obviously with his senses about him; the same thing happened when he rose the second time against Tyson. He was obviously in trouble, but not groggy, glassy-eyed, dazed to the point of defenselessness.

The ref took a good look into Lewis' eyes; he was "the decider". In those several seconds, Garcia made a pro's split-second decision that Lewis was too hurt to continue fighting. From Lewis' body language I believe Garcia made the right call.

Of course we would have liked to see how Lewis responded, but, in fact, he was in no shape to turn things around. I don't recall any time I saw a fighter cross that threshold of being hurt to the point of momentary defenselessness stave off his foe and come back to win. They have always taken unnecessary blows which could prove very dangerous and the fight is still stopped seconds later.

My unpolitical take.

 

Interesting position.

I think the best way to rate fighters, as I've always maintained is to stick to a certain criteria;

For me its:

1. Tenure as Champion
2. Quality of Opposition
3. Ability as a fighter

My favorite fighter has always been Mike Tyson but I cannot rate him over Holmes simply because Holmes for all intents and purposes had a 7 year reign with 20 title defenses and continued to rack up wins even as he was collecting his pension. Though his reign was not as impressive as Tyson's was I think it merits a spot above Mike based on longevity. Tyson's loss to Douglas counts against him but what he did after his first loss was still very impressive. I rate Tyson over Holyfield simply because Tyson was far more dominant as champion than Evander ever was. I rate Holmes over both of them because Larry was far more dominant. Holmes loses points in his quality of opposition because there were several fights and rematches that he should have made as champion that he didnt make which is why he isnt further up in my book. Incidentally Joe Louis is my #1.

As for Holmes and Lewis well:

I like Lennox Lewis, I think he's finally getting his due but Holmes was far more dominant. Lewis's reign was from 1999-2003 despite taking the lineal title from Briggs in 1998. Yes he was a titlist in 1993 but from 93-95: Bowe, Holyfield, Moorer, Foreman were considered "The Man" 95-97 it was Bowe, Tyson and Holyfield despite not having the linear title. 97-99 Holyfield was the man.
It wasnt until 1999 when Lewis was given that distinction. Lewis has better names on his resume but some of the names were fighters who despite the politics involved were past prime fighters.

Thing about Holmes is that, like Lewis politics werent always on his side, he unfortunatley lived in an era where titles were being created during his reign! But unlike Lewis he was considered the man up until he lost to Michael Spinks in a close but FAIR decision. So his reign is longer and he has shown the consistency that a HW champion should show without any unecessary bumps on the road. Holmes was human and yes he was vunerable to a right hand just like Lennox was but unlike Lewis when he was caught with a shot that put him down he got up usually regrouped by the end of the round picked up the pace and got back to business and win the fight. So in the end I have gotta give the edge to Larry.

 

Yes, and, personally, I have tried to make up my ratings based on relative abilities head-to-head, considering factors such as opposition and longevity.

This simply because every champion's circumstances are so different, but the fundamental criteria should be the same:

If a fighter becomes undisputed champion and successfully defends the title a reasonable number of times, enough to establish his reign to the point of worldwide recognition, and most especially against a perceived number-one challenger, he has arrived.

From there on, any number of things can happen: the fire dies out, age, a better opponent down the line, etc., but during that time he was the baddest man on the planet.

This is the specimen I envision when stacking up the greats. Would Holmes at the peak of his powers and confidence, around 1980, turn back a Lewis whose jab and ring smarts made him undisputed king of the hill at the turn of the century?

In this case, I believe Holmes had the fundamentals, stamina and durability to decision Lewis, while Lewis would lack the speed, work rate and two-handed ability to make this otherwise.

 

Lewis by late KO

 

:yep

and Larry would have won and still fought Cooney tho the bucks may or may not be a little down. I don't think King would have given Cooney Snipes in the hopes of Cooney winning then fighting Holmes, more credibility and interest the other way.

 

Great posts and insights btw guys, top reading.

 

except for the fact that Holmes was still staggering and wobbling from the knockdowns when the ref waved the fight to continue which in the Shavers kd was actualy after the count of 10, he was still staggering away from the ref at 8!!!!! and badly staggered as the action continued. It was 13 seconds later that the ref grabbed his gloves and looked at him in the Snipes fight and at that point he was still moving away and not standing still for the ref to assess him, he then proceeded to stagger around in a way that no referee worth their salt today could let continue.
Lewis was up at 6 and the ref stopped it at 8, he didnt stagger any worse than holmes but then he wasnt given the time or favour either in comparison.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_LijnCa33Uw


The worst referee in modern times for letting fights continue dangerously is Cortez, this is the guy that gave Holyfield until 17 seconds to recover after he only got up at 9 and three quarters. If he had reffed the rumble in the jungle then by that standard Foreman would have been allowed to continue since he was up at 9!!!!!

 

I agree that the first McCall fight was stopped too soon, it was unfair to Lewis., and the first Rahman fight was a FLUKE, spell as I did in all caps. I have to rate Lewis as better than Holmes, and I respect Holmes alot. Lewis, as he proved, was superior to the two men who beat him, and if he had approached these two fights, as he should have, would have been an undefeated champion. Lewis, fighting in his cautious, plan "B" mode, could have beaten Ali, just as Norton (in my opinion) did.

 

Larry hasn't been in the gym since his induction into the HOF. I was gonna tell him congradulations...but its a little late now. Apparently he's over in California doing something or other (most likely charity work and selling his slot machines and various endorcements). Thanks for clearing up your ranking of Larry John, Ive always just been curious of it. It makes sence to me now.:good

 

No worries Bill, it's the whole story mate. I have to be honest and say in my early days i didn't like him, but by the time of the Spinks rematch i'd warmed to him and actively cheered him on. Maybe he had to lose before i found some appreciation, or maybe i realised we were seeing the probable end of a great fighter's career and i'd better give a bit of appreciation before it was too late. Strangely enough when i went out buying heaps of fights his was the first Heavyweight set i nabbed above all others.

 

Head-to-head Holmes is better. Better boxing skills, better chin, stamina, and heart. Lewis has the bigger size and power, but Holmes would outsmart him. This si my head-to-head list.

1. Ali
2. Liston
3. Tyson
4. Louis

This content is protected

6. Johnson
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Dempsey

This content is protected