Lennox Lewis inducted into hall of fame.

C'mon, Zak. Why you no respond to me? :bbb

:yep

:hat

 

Congrats to Lennox. More than deserved as he is one my favorties .

His All-time hw rank is very diverse. Some put him on top which is clearly nuthugging and others outside the top 10 which is ludacris imo. Manny Steward ranks him #6 or #7 which is pretty fair imo. I tend to rank him between #4-6. I don't think there is any doubt he is the best of the era which included Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe.

I really admire how he regrouped after the Mccall loss, got Manny and became a better fighter. He became better as he got older which is quite rare amongst top fighters. Coupled with his very long and consistent reign and it's hard to keep him out of the top 6 in my view.

And Lennox is such a poor boxing analyst, he's unintentionally funny and entertaining :yep

 

It is. That's what generally happens when you're avoided like the plague though.

How many guys did Lewis pay stepaside money to?
How many paid him - or pulled out of signed contracts to fight him?

How many NON-AMERICAN fighters did Holy BEAT as heavyweight champ?
In fact, how many non American heavyweights has Holy beaten full stop?

I always thought he was the American heavyweight champ, not the world heavyweight champ. (see how easy it is to pour **** on someone?)

 

Okay, here's my response. I don't have all those statistics at my fingertips, nor do I particularly care if there are HW's who have all those attributes or not. Furthermore, any of those things is subject to some interpretation. For example, you might say Lewis fought more "ranked" contenders than Ali (I haven't counted them up). That, however, is pretty meaningless when you consider that there were double the number of organizations (at least) to "rate" fighters - to say nothing of the QUALITY of those rated fighters.

Simillarly, how do you define "at the top." Do you mean rated in the top ten? Top five? Holding "the" title? What? Same thing with "significant" fights? Even worse, because you can't define that with any numerical precision at all - it's pure opinion!

I certainly would argue, btw, that Lewis had TWO "bogey" opponents - McCall and Rahman!! Don't give me that **** about rematches either - even if we grant that, btw, only the Rahman victory was definitive. McCall just mentally collapsed, shouldn't have even been allowed to fight, really. A mentally fit McCall would've knocked out Lewis again!!

 

I didn't see anything about the Ring magazine rankings in there?? And what is the justification for using them as opposed to say, some other rankings? And how are to we to then assess Jeffries, Johnson, or Dempsey. With the exception of Dempsey at the END of his career, the Ring didn't EXIST when they were fighting!!!

FAIL:yep

 

I am not saying that the Ring magazine is no good, or that its rankings couldn't be used, but that wasn't even in the original post. And it is only one of many sources that could be utilized. A strong argument could be made against using it, also, because it is not the ratings used in actually determining who fought who.

And, even if we agree that it should be determinative, we still have the problem of then assessing the pre-1922 champions, and also the issue of the relative strength of an era. For example, if, as many would argue, the guys that were rated when Ali, Frazier, or Foreman were fighting were better than the guys that Lewis fought. Others might argue that Marciano's undefeated record against solid if ordinary contenders elevates him to a higher status, for example.

Similarly, how do we weigh two or three victories over excellent fighters against a string of victories against so-so contenders? Judgement calls have to be made. And how are the types of losses weighed against quantity of losses. Some might argue, for example, that two crushing KO losses to ordinary contenders is far more damaging to a fighter's legacy than several decision losses.

What I am arguing is that virtually ever one of those questions is subjective, on one level or another.

 

Let's see, David Tua - a limited one-dimmensional slugger who did what outside of losing to Lewis and starching glorified clubfighter Ruiz in 19 seconds?? Oh, yeah, that's right, lose to never-was lunatic Ike Ibeabuchi and feather-fisted Chris Byrd.

Knocked out glass jawed, and aging, Frank Bruno after losing most of the rounds?? A Bruno who had already been ruined by Witherspoon and Tyson?? Akinwande??? Puh-leez. Regional fighter Gary Mason who had ZERO victories over world class fighters, other than arguably Olympic wash-out Tyrell Biggs?? Limited roid head Frans Botha??

Ruddock was a decent contender, but damaged from his wars with Tyson, and Lewis should have LOST to Mercer. Sorry, but these guys are far closer to Joe Louis's bum of the month opponents than the murder's row you're trying to make 'em out to be!!!

Note WHO accepted the step-aside money.

Of course, LEWIS couldn't be the least bit at fault, despite the fact that he is the common denominator in all these situations!!

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Yet the same, 'ageing and ruined glass jawed Bruno' took the title from McCall over 12 rounds AFTER he lost to Lewis.

The same McCall you say would have KO'd Lewis in a rematch had his head been right lol::nut

Keep spinning, it's always good for a laugh.