Holmes came off a layoff after losing close to Spinks and got knocked out by Tyson. Lennox picked up one of the best wins of his career.
Not really fair though..... There's a big difference between Mike Tyson at his absolute best and Vitali Klitschko.
I'd cut Holmes lots of slack if he put up a Tucker-like performance. That didn't happen. Reverse their opponents and think I Lewis does better, although he'd still probably lose to Tyson.
In H2H terms, I think Lewis would win by TKO in the first 6 rounds or close decision over 10 rounds, with a close decision to Holmes across 12. However, I highly doubt 38 year old Lewis could beat peak Mercer, let alone a theoretical 42 year old Lewis. Not only that, but I think a Lewis aged 42 would be stopped by KO/TKO in the mid rounds by peak Holyfield, whereas Holmes was competitive despite his advanced age, thus I believe Holmes had "more in the tank" when 38.
Lennox Lewis didn't even fight at 38. His last fight he was 37. The only boxing-related thing he did at 38 was announce his retirement.
Thank you for ruining my thread with "facts" and "logic" But seriously, Lewis at 37 and Holmes at 38 who do you think had more left in the tank? If Lewis were to hypothetically fight for another 4 years (until age 41) against the list of contenders below would he be more successful than Holmes fighting till age 42 against the same lot? Here are the fighters: W. Klitschko (2005 version) Pinklon Thomas (1984 version) David Tua (1997 version) Tim Witherspoon (1984 version) Mike Tyson (1988 version) V. Klitschko (2003 version) Ike Ibeabuchi (1999 version) Hasim Rahman (2001 version) Ray Mercer (1991 version) Tony Tucker (1987 version) Chris Byrd (2002 version) Oliver McCall (1995 version) Assume 3 fights a year for Lewis and Holmes. Remember they are getting older with each fight. Pick any order which would work to their best advantage.
I dont see Lewis doing as well as Holmes did. Not becuase he was further past his best. I just dont think Lewis was as good as Holmes. At any age.