Is Lennox Lewis Overrated?

Alot of Walcotts loses came early in his career when he was just a teen and seemed for many years he got beter with age and fought his best fight late in his career

Charles didnt State loosing badly until after the 2 wars with marciano

 

Walcott had also lost to other good fighters much later than when he was in his teens

Chalres had already lost several times to other fighters, some good fighters no doubt but still a loss.

 

I dont thank you understand that back in the days of Marciano, Walcott, Charles, ect losses didt mean as much and you had more losses caus fighters fouhgt MUCH more often I thank Charles had like 9 Defensses in 2 years or somthign like that and fighters if not fighting at the top level often came in to a fight without eating for a day or longer plus Fixes were much more common back then

 

Fighters were simply not as professional in these days in other words most worked normal jobs as well before they got to the elite level, the losses don't mean as much.

 

I think Lewis's wins over Holyfield and Tyson is at least as good as Marciano's over Walcott and Charles. Probably a bit better.

But Marciano should probably rank higher, since he didn't have any McCall Rahman type of losses, in fact no losses at all.

 

i do undestand what your saying but when people are discounting good wins from lewis suich as holyfield why can i not dispute the wins marciano had over people who where certainly not young a the time. Marciano didn't lose at the time so why did the other fighters, joe louis wasn't exactly losing alot of fights either.

 

The 1st Rahman fight Lennox didnt prepare at all. He was filming movies weeks before and after the 1st round u could see him breathing real heavy.

I think he would of stopped klitchko as well. I cant remember what round it was but he nailed klitchko with a huge uppercut and to me that was the punch which turned the fight. I think klitchko would of been stopped by 9 or 10th round in that fight.

I say Lewis is def top 10 and probably between 5-7

 

Lewis is top 10.

Amazing really how a man with dignity is so disliked (mostly by the urban crowd) whilst a man like Tyson is so revered.

I feel that many people underrate Lewis because they don't like him.

On the upside he brought order to the decision, fought everyone who would fight him and was never mastered in the ring. BUT he did get KO'd twice, didn't like fighting at a fast pace and did get untidy if tagged.

Lewis had some messy fights with guys you wouldn't have expected: Bruno, Mercer, Briggs... but he found a way to win.

 

I would say the evander lennox fought is equivalent to the louis marciano fought. both were 37, same size, both were beating the top 10 contenders of there time, but marciano dominated louis more than lennox did to evander.

 

I agree....lennox lacks that one great win that other greats have needed to get him in the top 5. he doesnt have that legacy defining fight. Too bad bowe-lennox never came off.

 

The rematch was very close. Lewis just nicked it IMO but I know many who think Evander won.

After that fight I looked at Holyfield's career and realised what a great fighter he truly was. Prime for prime I'd pick Holy to beat Lewis. Evander was prone to be inconsistent but on his day I think he was the best of the 90s HWs.

 

Not unreasonable, but Lewis dominated Tyson more than Marciano dominated either Louis, Walcott or Charles. And Tyson was 36 and had an impressive recent victory over a top contender in Golota.

 

I think when you try to rate a HW all time you have to try to ignore for the most part his level of competition and think instead of rating him on a head to head basis. If we use level of competition as the deciding factor then men like Louis, Marciano, Holmes and Jack Johnson don't rate all that high which is of course absurd. Joe Louis had 25 title defences but only 2 were against black men (Walcott and Lewis) and many of the others fit into his "Bum of the month club" but certainly no one is going to take him out thier top 10 because of it. Holmes certainly didn't defend against the highest level of competition either and look at Johnson's reign as champion..weak at best which is why we should look at each champion at his best and rate him against all the other champions at thier best and see where they stand. If we do this then I think Lennox rates rather high in this regard. When you combine his size, ability, smarts and power you have a man that would've been very difficult to beat by any champ past or present. He certainly would've been the most formidable opponent for men like Johnson,Marciano and Dempsey as well as Louis and would've given Ali and Holmes headaches too. We're not talking about men like Fireman Jim Flynn, Tony Galento, Gus Dorazio or even Don Cockell for Chrissakes!! We're talking about a 6'5" 240lb monster who could box and punch like a wrecking ball and who's resume matches up with all but perhaps Ali's in terms of level of competition. On that basis I think Lewis rates high. About 5 or 6 behind Ali, Holmes, Louis, a prime Holyfield and maybe a prime Tyson or Foreman. I'd give him a slight nod over most other past HW champions. Anyone out there agree or at least understand my way of thinking?

 

I look at accomplishements, and not head to head. H2H is too speculative and, since I think boxing has evolved since the 1890's, also unfair. I think you have to judge how each fighter did in his own era.

And I don't think accomplishements reflect badly on Johnson (who cleaned out the black division and then did the same to the white) or Louis (who had 26-1 in title fights and beat some 25-30 ranked opponents).