Hes one of the best of recent times if not all times he beat pretty much everyone in his era and from the era before him
badassqatari, its ok if you dont like Lennox. But he was one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. so no, hes not overrated.
He's one of only two guys of his era who fought every guy out there. Btw, I know he didn't fight comebacking Foreman but how big a threat was he? And the other guy who fought everyone is Holyfield. The difference is that Lewis beat everybody that was a marginally known name at the time. He earned the name Emperor in my book.
tyson was done after prison. fact holy was hardly a shadow of his prime self when he got to him. fact to be called great, you must beat great fighters in their greatest forms in great fights. thats why duran to leonard 1 was a lot better win than leonard to duran 3. though i must agree lennox has the tools to become great. every great fighters have a host of bums... errr... 2nd tier fighters in their resume. this argument hardly mean anything 90s is one of the weakest era. Hall of fame locks in this era were all on the slide of their performances the biggest case against lewis were his losses against mccall and rahman.no greats would lose in their prime against guys like them. ali, louis, dempsey, sure theyve all suffered defeats, but not during their primes, and certainly not against mccalls and rahmans of their time
:huh talent wise? theres only lewis in this era. and holy who primed in 89-92, who was actually a bloated cruiser.
as i stated in my reply to cachi, every greats have a host of 2nd tier guys in their resume. so that argument hardly mean anything. look at louis resume, his bums of the month was even used as case against him