Lennox Lewis championship run

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I think we just see a few of these fighters differently.

On Ruiz—while I agree the first Holyfield fight was close, Holyfield still edged it. The other two were competitive, but Ruiz only clearly won one. The third fight could have gone either way (though most had it for Holyfield). Comparing Ruiz’s success against Holyfield to Lewis’s feels like a stretch when Lewis won two clear, dominant fights while Ruiz went 1-1-1 in a much more even trilogy.

As for Mercer, context matters. He was a rugged, durable fighter with a strong chin and a style that made fights ugly—he gave plenty of top fighters trouble, including Holyfield. Holmes boxed him beautifully, but I wouldn’t say Lewis "struggled" badly—it was competitive, but Lewis still edged it. The idea that Lewis “waited him out” seems speculative; fighters mature at different rates, and Lewis in ‘96 was far more polished than in ‘92, making that matchup a more meaningful test.

I definitely don’t underestimate Cooney’s physical tools, but I do think Vitali was a level above—more disciplined, more durable, and with better fundamentals. Cooney never truly proved himself against top competition, whereas Vitali consistently performed at a high level and only ever lost due to injuries or cuts. Comparing them purely on physicality ignores the significant gap in skill and ring IQ.

And I still believe Lewis’s resume, top wins, and dominance hold up well against any heavyweight not named Ali or Louis. Holmes had incredible longevity, but he also had close calls that Lewis mostly avoided through more dominant performances. They have different strengths, but for me, Lewis’s peak and quality of opposition give him the edge—though I admit it’s close and depends on what you prioritize.

Appreciate the discussion—always great debating this with someone who knows their history.

 

Cool. My only real difference in my opinion is that I would have Wlad higher.

I still don't know how people do all time P4P rankings. I would find that as coin flippy as anything boxing related especially the lower you go down a list like that. I don't know if I could do anymore than a top 10 maybe a top 20 at most.

 

You underestimate and rubbish other fighters constantly in order to prop up Klitschko bros. . Cooney basically did nothing, beat nobody and was useless according to what you posted in this thread.
He beat Jimmy Young and Ken Norton as his two best wins. They were shot but so was Sanders when Vitali fought. I suppose you'll just argue semi retired , old and fat Sanders was prime because that how you operate.
Shot Young and shot Norton is the same as shot Sanders and past prime Sam Peter.

Furthermore, what fundamentals? Vitali was a converted kick boxer with a crude boxing style full of cracks and exploits , which Lewis and Byrd found with relative ease after taking the fight on short notice.
Cooney had a technically sound left hook to head and body. Vitali couldn't even throw.... a hook.

 

Dino when anyone mentions the Klitschko be like:

 

Even the lesser version of Lewis the 1991-1995 version beat a lot of names.Weaver, Biggs,Mason,Ruddock,Tucker,Bruno and Morrison. I never felt he was the division no 1despite that list being more impressive than the other champions.I felt Holyfield and Bowe would beat him in h 2 h and given the Mccall result I think a 1991 Foreman would've been interesting .

His title reign 96-2003 he just got better and better.As he got older he looked like the emperor of boxing with his dreadlocks.

 

Vitali has a poor resume. He was probably better than his resume indicates but we will never know for sure. So it's a stretch to call it a big win when he is so unproven

 

That’s fair to an extent—Vitali’s resume isn’t stacked with elite names, and I agree he probably never got to fully prove himself the way some others did. But I still think the eye test and consistency matter. He dominated nearly everyone he faced, rarely lost a round, and only ever "lost" due to cuts or injury in fights he was leading. He was never knocked down, never outboxed, and fought at a high level for over a decade. More then enough to consider him a great fighter and consider a win over him a great win over a future great.

 

It's good to talk to you but I see a certain inconsistency.
You write that Vitali didn't actually lose rounds apart from injuries and cuts and at the same time you call the victory over him great, admitting at the same time that he himself didn't beat anyone great. If the eye test based on which you think he was great is really a important, then I definitely wouldn't call Lewis and Byrd's victory over him great.

 

Totally understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate the thoughtful pushback.

I think for me, it's not that the win over Vitali is "great" in the same way as beating a clear-cut Hall of Famer—it’s more that it aged well given how Vitali looked before and after. He may not have had the marquee wins, but he never looked out of his depth in the fights he lost. His dominance, consistency, durability, and the fact that he gave Lewis arguably his toughest fight post-McCall speaks volumes—even if it’s not the same as beating, say, a peak Holyfield.

You're right that there’s some tension in using the eye test as a qualifier, but boxing has always had that gray area—guys like Ike Ibeabuchi, Dmitry Pirog, or even Golovkin early on—fighters whose ability was obvious but the résumés didn’t always fully reflect it.

So while I don’t rank the Vitali win as high as Holyfield, I do still think it adds something meaningful to Lewis’s legacy—especially because it came at the very end of his career against the next man up, and he still found a way to win.

 

I think we have a very similar view. Maybe we differ a bit in our assessment. Thanks for the conversation

 

When did Larry go into the lions den?

Lewis sure did. Who has a better record against DKP guys in cross promotions?

Just think about it---if that second Shavers bout is a cross promotion, Larry is waved off while hanging out on the ropes > the knockdown. Or how about when he falls face first into the turnbuckle against Snipes? That is stopped right then and there. Then you have the close decisions against Witherspoon and Williams.

Big big differnce in outcomes when you are the house fighter.

 

It hurts me that the 2 undisputed heavyweight world champions of the 2000s (Lennox Lewis & Oleksandr Usyk) haven't defended their undisputed titles at all, and had to vacate a belt or two for their mandatories. The last time the undisputed heavyweight world championship was successfully defended was when Evander Holyfield won a 12-round unanimous decision over Larry Holmes, and this was more than 30 years ago

 

Holmes got up within 4-5 seconds of the Shavers knockdown and wasn't hit with another punch after that.

Holmes also got up instantly vs Snipes maybe a bit too quickly hence he fell into the turnbuckle but he quickly recovered the situation and was walking normal straight after and was coherent.

I don't see what difference it makes whether Holmes was a champion or challenger in these circumstances Holmes got up almost instantly in both cases and recovered alot better than Lewis.

Lewis on the other hand got dropped by McCall and couldn't stand up straight without wobbling atleast 3 times that's considerably worse than the Snipes incident hence that's why the referee stopped it.

I don't think the Witherspoon fight is that controversial its very overrated as a controversial decision based on the awful biased commentary. Holmes pretty much pitched almost a shut out in the first 6 rounds. And then when Witherspoon had his best moment of the fight in the 9th round instead of chasing the fight he let his foot off the gas doing a bad Ali impression losing the later rounds. Again nothing to do with being a house fighter Witherspoon simply didn't do enough end of.

For me it's a clear Holmes win.

Williams I agree is pretty controversial but Lewis also had a very controversial decision vs Mercer aswell.

 

I also think Holmes beat Spinks in the rematch and Nielsen quite clearly. I need to rewatch the first Spinks fight because I had Holmes winning by a point when I last saw it in 2017 even though most people think Spinks won that.

One of the toughest heavyweights to put away really.