Lennox Lewis. Does he have some holes in his legacy?

Oh no PowerPuncher, I know you as a good poster in the classic forum but to say that Lewis has probably the best resume in history - it's the BIG overstatement.

Ali has better resume by any means, and it's undeniable. I can also name quite a few fighers with compareble or better resumes like Louis, Holmes, Holyfield etc.

But I can't see how you can argue Lewis' resume is better that Ali (no way in hell).

Ali won 22 title fights, Lennox 15

Ali holds 8 wins over 5 lineal champions (Liston*2, Patterson*2, Foreman, Frazier*2, Spinks)

Lewis - 4 wins (Tyson, Holyfield, Briggs, Rahman)

Ali was undisputed champion from 1964 to 1967, then from 1974 to 1978, and in 1978-1979

Lewis was undisputed champion from 1999 to 2001, then again from 2001 to 2004.

Ali beat twice as much TOP-10 Ring ranked fighters as Lewis did.

Ali won title fights from 1964 to 1978 - 14,5 years span, which lasted more than the whole Lewis' career.

And Ali was never in his prime (or even when he was ill and completely shot) knocked out by mediocree HWs like McCall and Rahman.

Ali resume is MUCH better and deeper than Lewis', that's an undeniable fact even for Lewis fans.

Louis, by the way, has better resume, too.

26 wins in title fights, 11 years reign, 7 wins over 6 different lineal champions. Louis beat more ranked opponents than Lewis, too.

And I'm not by any means Lewis' hater, I like him. But I'm trying to be objective.

Ali and Louis have clearly better resumes than Lewis so Lewis hasn't 'probably the best resume in history' like you wrote.

 

I agree with you, but you must take into account that in the 60's there was only 1 title WBA, and the 70's only 2 with the WBC being added.

I don't even care how many there were in Lewis' era, but I know it was more than that.

 

So you are telling me that if Wlad gets to 26 consecutive title defenses that Lennox would have the better resume?

Don't kid yourself.

 

To each his own. I'm a lot more concerned with quality over quantity. I'd take a win over a prime Tyson or a prime Lewis or a prime Ali over all those wins.

 

Anyone can have a good night.

What is even harder than winning a championship? Defending it.

 

11 pages of Lemmie apologists....

 

Lewis was favoring money over legacy. Can't blame him but that did create holes in his legacy.

 

Beat EVERY man he ever faced. How about a Klitchko doing that? Not everyone has got a brother to do their fighting for them.

 

Created no such thing. If someone in the world (i.e., watching from outside the US) actually thought that Ruiz and Byrd mattered then they simply don't have much familiarity with these two fighters.

If Lewis had been able to meet Tyson anywhere close to his prime that would have meant something. If Lewis had been able to face Holyfield earlier that would have meant something. If Lewis had been able to meet Bowe during his run that would have been something. If Lewis had fought Ibeabuchi that would have been something. If Lewis had fought Wlad that would have been something.

Fighting Ruiz and Byrd was worthless and irrelevant. Can't spell it out any clearer or make it any plainer than that. No one over here gave a f**k about these fights and these fighters. PERIOD.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Wlad made 26 defences,its who he is making them against that I judge him by.

 

:yep

 

This is rubbish simply because you don't have a choice when you challenge the Champion but you can cherry pick challengers.Just look at some of the dross Wlad has defended against.
Lewis would have been murdered by the press for beating up on some of them. They make Michael Grant look like King Kong!

 

That's the truth!:good

 

There's no evidence ? If you want to play that game, there's no evidence that Lewis would have signed to fight them either.

Holyfield was giving press releases in early 1994 saying he wanted to fight Lewis and unify the title (that Bowe and Lewis had split while Holyfield was title-less for a year) before he retires.
He was saying he hoped he could get the IBF to let him unify instead of fighting their no.1 contender Moorer next.

Is there any more evidence that Lewis's camp were any more serious than Holyfield ?

It seems Bowe's team were only willing to fight Lewis when Lewis had the title - and Bowe didn't.
... and after losing the title Lewis chose to fight Lionel Butler in a "WBC eliminator" anyway.
I'm not really set on defending Bowe though, of all people. I just don't attribute 100% to his team as many people do out of ignorance.

Who's everyone ?
I suppose ..
Bowe briefly in late '92/early '93.
And Tyson in mid '96.
Both times, Lewis was nicely rewarded with titles and/or step-aside millions.

Holyfield also lost to Ruiz. What does that say ?

 

Yes, I actually think Holyfield deserved a third fight.
Of course, people do say "there was no public demand for it".
But there was public demand for Tyson - not only that, there was demand from the boxing media atsch - Tyson was clearly the inferior fighter to Holyfield (among others).
I think a third Holyfield fight, if Lewis wins convincingly, would do A LOT more for his legacy that the Tyson fight.
But of course boxing doesn't work like that.