How many prime fighters has Lennox lewis beaten?

I tend to rank Ali's resume at the top with Holyfield hovering around there. And Lennox's resume is extremely close with Tyson's. Not sure if you agree with that but it's fine. Holmes and Louis have longevity with some great wins sprinkled on top.

Curious to see your Heavyweight ATG rankings. I've probably asked you to share it before but it's cold and I'm lazy to do research. PM me if you can.

 

Nice bait thread, reece

 

And in fairness, Witherspoon for my money beat Mercer.

 

That's quite a list. I guess there are all types .. thank''s for memorializing it.

 

I rank Lewis and Holyfield's top w Ali next and Holmes and Tyson a step below but all five fought top oppositon but I feel post prison they made sure Tyson didn't fight punchers with iron chins like Tua or Mercer without a title on the line .. too risky given his questionable training at that time .. I do rate Tyson's title reign and accomplishments as terrific and absurdly discounted by many .. I really don't do all time lists as H2H makes it so hard to place .. as far as agreeing, we all have our individual thoughts ..

 

Ali's resume is light years better than Lewis's or Holyfield's.
In my opinion, which doesn't count for ****, of course.
But I can't see it even being close.

 

You seem to be defending Lewis. But there's no need. My criticisms of the "resume" are not judgements on Lewis or his management. Just cold considered judgements on the quality of the opposition. I'm certainly not condemning him for fighting those men, just making a considered rating of the opponents.

Of course not.
But I will now go and find the thread and like the post just for larks.

But on the other hand, from what I remember .... Dokes was 5 years younger than Mercer, on a clean streak, winning, fighting regularly. Getting noticed, being taken quite seriously. Dokes was seen as a good fighter who'd cleaned his act up and on a mission to get another crack at the title.

Mercer was inactive, coming off a loss and a draw. His most recent fight was a very decent showing against Holyfield but that was a year earlier and Holyfield was already war-torn. Mercer wasn't seen as s major force, just a durable opponent.

I think yours is a bit of a revisionist view. I agree with you that Mercer performed better against Holyfield, Lewis and Witherspoon than he had against Marion Wilson, so earned a rating.
Still, he arguably lost all 3 of those fights, and Lewis is the only "prime" one there.

It seems that Lewis made hard work of Mercer, therefore you and others are keen to rationalize it as Mercer being at his absolute best, and that his absolute best is better than anyone at the time had considered.

Don't get me wrong, Mercer was a good heavyweight. But he was kind of slow and plodding, not hard to hit, relatively basic, a tough man for sure, no pushover. But not as brilliant as you like to believe. Clearly we won't agree on this.

He fought well against all three. But Witherspoon was 39. Holyfield picked Mercer as a tune-up coming back from the terrible performance against Moorer, and Mercer was decked in the fight.

The "hot and cold fighter" thing sometimes seems to be used as an excuse. At the end of the day, he is LOSING to all the top fighters, and LOSING to (or DRAWING with) some of the journeymen too.
Mercer's best wins are probably in 1990 and '91.

Tubbs fight was more than a decade before the Mercer fight. Do the calculation.

Yes, Witherspoon had a few good outings after 1986.
But I would put his prime at 1983-'86.
It doesn't matter. Someone else might say his prime lasted a little longer. It doesn't change the fact that he was old and past his best at the end of 1996.

Which suggests a weak era.

Exactly.

 

Just elaborating as i go.

No ****ing doubt!

The rationalisation might well be right too. It's debatable. At the end of the day Lewis beat him and struggling when not expected to struggle is hardly career damaging or of large importance in H2H in the big scheme of things. They've all have their weird outings.

His best win is quite possibly Witherspoon. It was what muchly propelled him back deep into the 10.

You said more than a decade. A decade being 10 years i would take more than as 11 or more. No biggie in the overall scheme of things tho of course. Witherspoon tho past his best was still a solid fighter in 96.

It fluctuated as most do. Go thru the 70's decade and you will find a load of filler type there too, or "bums" if you prefer

 

The word is gatekeepers ...

 

Mercer turned pro late at an advanced age. 35 years old without the typical wear and tear of someone who turned pro at 20. Bernard Hopkins for example was probably at his peak at 36-37 years old.

 

He can't fight though. That's a problem.

 

No, gatekeeper is quite specific.

 

Nope
The version of Mercer that Lewis defeated was the best of his career. He was a dangerous contender. Ray was up for Lewis, he had to be..they fought a crisp pace for heavyweights. The early 90s version of Mercer couldn't box at all. He had improved his skillset substantially.

 

Mercer was in some 'wars' early on. Also, he didn't have the best lifestyle, seemed to come in to some fights out of shape, unlike Hopkins.

He was coming off a loss and a draw.

He was not prime under any normal definition of the term.