Is Lennox Lewis Overrated?

This whole post is ridiculous.

To some winning a gold metal in the oympics is a life long dream. Appreciate it for what it is, a once in a life time dream come true.

Lewis had plenty of time to make his mark in the division and did in fact do so. It's not his fault Tyson short ciruited his career, nor could this be foreseen. Perhaps if Tyson had paid more attention to the fundaments and stayed an amateur longer, he may have in fact had a longer, more successful career. Many great boxers have orginated from the olympics from Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Wlad, Holyfield etc.

I don't think it's up to you or me, to determine which of these two aspirations, winning an olympic gold metal, and becoming world champion is more important, especially if someone strongly believes both are attainable.

 

Boy, you guys are joined at the hip with your love of the word "ridiculous".

I am calling Pontius on a couple of seemingly calculating stats. My breakdown of the time from the Catskill sparring to Lewis' precious gold medal is right on the money.

For the umpteenth time, Lewis' precious gold medal adventure is a pet peeve of mine. As a fan, I wish he had given us the show of meeting Tyson when Tyson was at his peak. What a series of fights those might have been. Every Ali needs a Frazier. Lewis and Tyson were contemporaries. It seemed in the cards. But it takes two to tango.

 

Well as a fan who wouldn't want to see that fight, but I don't think the blame for the fight not taking place rests soly on Lewis. You obviously do and that's where we disagree.

 

Okay, i don't remember where i read/heard it, but if USA today said so then i guess he was 18. Still, what's your point? Tyson was a stocky fighter, meaning he'd look like a huge dude because he was so short (for a heavyweight). Lewis was incredibly tall and as such, looked more skinny by comparison. Mind you, Ali was a lightheavyweight in the amateurs. Lewis was already at 230 pounds in 1989 when he was 24; he went from there to 240 pounds when he was 30 years old. 10 pounds is not much at all when you are already at 230lbs, especially if you consider that is was bulk (fat+muscle), not pure muscle while already being ripped with zero fat gain, like Holyfield.

I said 87 because that's when Tyson had all belts. Big deal. Lewis decided to persue gold, Tyson had absolutely nothing to do with it.



By the way, that is one funny comment from Bowe. More on the mark would've been "See you in the pro's, where i'm going to blatantly duck you and drop my title to avoid you".

Aha, now i understand your motivation.
But you can hardly blame Lewis for the fact that Tyson couldn't retain his focus and lost to Douglas. And tell me again, who decided to drop his title to avoid Lewis, the mandatory?

 

To be fair, in the recent year, his stock has gone up quite a bit which always happens after a fighter retires. When even that sigar smoking ****** Bert Sugar has Lewis in the top12, you know there is progress.

 

lewis wasn't ready for Tyson in the eighties obviously he did the right thing for his career which is why he had the success he did. A fight at this time with Tyson was never going to happen.

 

I think there's a very solid argument to have him outside of the top ten, and this why so many experts do.

I have him at 11 or 12, I wouldn't scoff at him squeaking into the top ten, but I don't see the argument for having him any higher.

 

Does anyone know how many people in 1986-1988 were screaming "Lewis is a *****! He's not a pro yet but should stop ducking Tyson, forget about that worthless gold medal, turn pro and fight him immediately! This is the biggest fight out there!"


Hint: **** all people did. :good


This is just ridiculous re-writing of history and hindsight talk because i 100% guarantee you that prime himself barely knew who Lewis was before '88, and if he did, no way he was saying he ducked Tyson back then when it was not even clear when it wasn't even certain that he'd turn pro one day. But hey, you gotta blame someone for the fact that Tyson couldn't sustain his upper arc for more than a few years and didn't wanna fight Lewis when he was his mandatory in 1996.

 

Let's hear it then.

It's all very well speculating how Lewis would perform against this guy and this other guy would KO him because Lewis lost twice to 'B Level journeymen' but it's all moot at the end of the day. The fact is that Lewis faced almost every contender in a 14 year career, only lost twice and beat every fighter he ever faced. How many other great heavyweights can say this? Marciano sure, but who else? Very, very few I would guess.

You can't blame Lewis for not fighting Bowe or not fighting Tyson earlier - those were factors outwith his control. If you think there is 'a very solid argument' for ranking Lewis outside the Top 10 I wanna hear it.

 

This is pretty much how I see it, and I'm personally not that keen on Lewis. He's certainly no favourite of mine.

But he beat everyone he met, and met just about everyone there was to meet. This can't be said of anyone else except Marciano. And it can't even be said of Frazier, Liston, Foreman, Tyson, Holmes or Holyfield when they were reasonably close to their primes (Ali's, Louis's, Dempsey's and Johnson's unavenged defeats in big fights at least came when they were way past their primes). So I can't see how you can reasonably keep him outside your top 10, while I can see him in a top 5.

 

My simple suspicion is that, for the first 80-or-so years of professional Queensberry boxing, a heavyweight normally peaked around the age of 25. Dempsey: age 25 for Willard; Louis: 24 for Schmeling II; Ali: age 24 for Williams; Foreman: age 23 for champion Frazier. Any weight they naturally added later in their careers was overall a detriment. The older they got, the more they began to slip from their peak, now in this aspect, now in that. Just natural human physiology.

Lewis was 29 and had weighed an average of around 230 pounds when McCall halted him with one punch. Mind you, he weighed 238 for McCall and was obviously not at his best that night. After that, he never fought under 240 again, improved his style (kudos) and retained sharpness, suppleness, endurance, and power, improving in fact in several of these key departments, well after his 35th birthday. This just seems fishy, if, to no one else, to me. After the McCall setback, Lewis weighed 248, 246, 241, 242, 244 (Golota), 243, 243, 245 (Holy I), 242, 247 (Grant), 250, 249 (age 35, and never looked better!)

I have before made a comparison between this strange genesis of heavyweight late bloomers and He-Man-type effective fighters such as Lewis, parallel to the pervasive knowledge and availability of steroids, and the cartoonish shattering of home run records in baseball. For nearly 100 years, the most the very greatest sluggers attained in the HR column was around 60 homers a year. Suddenly, in '98, you've got guys like McGwire and Sosa reaching marks of 70 and 66 homers, late in their careers and in the same year! Of course, this was nothing, because, in this "golden era", just a few years later, we were "blessed" to see a guy like Bonds, not only suddenly grow into a freakish behemoth past his 30th birthday, but routinely smash 73 roundtrippers out of the park.

Just a "ridiculous" slight suspicion of mine.

And, back to Lewis and his precious gold: I commend him for always, as was his style in the ring, taking the safety-first route. He was disappointed in his first Olympic bid, and, as can be expected for a top amateur fighter like him, he romped when he decided to make a second attempt, exploiting his experience as Biggs did four years prior.

This cautious approach throughout his career allowed him to always be on the upsurge when his biggest pro name opponents were on the downslide, whether it was a Ruddock, Tucker, Holyfield or Tyson. Congrats. I applaud him for beating back contenders such as Golota, Grant and Tua along the way.

It is this analytical thinking of his, which by the way has allowed him to do what very few greats before him did, put head over heart and retire in time, that I in my heart believe just maybe played a role in his deciding to put in another couple of years for an amateur prize (with the added benefit of greater experience; he was world amateur champ in '83 for Pete's sake) rather than go pro knowing a younger stablemate of his was reigning supreme in the aura of vicious invincibility. He bided his time, as always, and it worked. Hats off to him.

But his proven "ability" to be stopped by one punch and his overall showing against ancient Holyfield and Tyson give me misgivings about his chances against the all-time top five heavies. But he would probably continue in the amateurs until the time was right.

 

That is not fair especially if you consider the exigent circumstances surronding mike tysons personel life which was crumling faster than I downed that chocolate shake earlier. Also I might add in tysons defense What Mike tyson accomplished in those "few years" was arguebably better/more dominating than what any heavyweight champion accomlished in a decade's length time.

 

This "beating every fighter he ever faced" argument isn't as impressive as it sounds - Gene Tunney managed the same feat, and I very rarely see him on top10 lists and justifiably so, even though he is my favourite fighter of all time, I just don't see the case.

It's not neccessarily the loss that really damages a fighter, often times a fighter will lose and actually bolster his standing - Taylor-Chavez, Tucker-Tyson etc etc. You have to look at the manner in which Lewis lost - Early single punch knockouts, one to a contender, and another to a fighter I consider no more than a journeyman (McCall) in the prime of his career.

If Lewis defeated McCall, he would've fought Bowe. He didn't, and so he missed out on fighting one of the best fighters of the mid 90's.

His best "win" is against a Holyfield in his late 30's, which is officially a draw. I believe he lost to Ray Mercer, who troubled Lewis with his well-timed jab, slow plodding come-forward style and subtle head movement. Ray Mercer was a poor mans Sonny Liston.

His best opponent was arguably the prime Vitali Klitschko he fought, who outboxed him quite comprehensively despite losing the fight. It's all speculation, but I think if the ref hadn't called an end to the fight (prematurely judging by Vitalis reaction) we would've seen a conclusive victory for Vitali.

As for the Tyson fight, this is the same version of Tyson who couldn't beat a top50 slow plodding Kevin McBride - The name is impressive on Lewis' resume but the win means about as much as Jack Johnson beating Bob Fitzsimmons.

Ultimately in a head to head sense if McCall and Rahman can end the fight with a single punch early in the bout against a peak Lewis, then any genuine bomber stands a chance of defeating him, and this greatly diminishes his "head to head" ranking in my view. Laughing prior to the knockout punch Vs Rahman is just the inring conduct of an idiot.

That is the argument! He did enough to warrant top15, but in my mind, the aforementioned rules him out of the top ten in my mind, although I can see why some may have him scraping in.