Lennox Lewis is overrated

In my opinion, Moorer would have stached Rahman and outboxed McCall to a UD.

 

So because he did not fight them means that he definetely wouldn't have beaten them ??

don't be stupid, know one knows if he wouldve beaten them.

He smashed up Razor Ruddock who was competitive against Prime Tyson

He destroyed Golota who was beating prime bowe twice before being disqualified

So its all ifs and buts

 

no, he was just knocked out by a former middleweight who could't even beat the ham and egger you keep going on about.

 

Michael Moorer was 34-0 and had a certain pedigree when he beat Holyfield, he was considered a sharp southpaw boxer, that fight was very close.

Oliver McCall was 24-5 and had a reputation as a tough journeyman-type sparring partner when he beat Lennox Lewis, and that was quite a dramatic victory.

I wouldn't say Moorer is much better than McCall, he's not as tough for one thing, but he was considered to have far more boxing quality at the time.

The first Holyfield-Moorer fight was VERY CLOSE, that's the important difference.
As I remember the first Lewis-McCall fight, it ended early in the 2nd round with Lewis electing to do the rubber-legged Tango with the referee.

Then again, McCall cried like a baby in the rematch.
Holyfield never had that effect on anyone.
Maybe Lewis is greater ?

 

what most Lennox Lewis haters don't understand...is that there wasn't such a thing as a talented guy of his size back in tyson's or Ali's era...

before talking about "poor" era...always remember this...fighters are very different today..Extremely different. all these eras are hardly comparable to each other...When you look at some of tyson's opponents , we can also argue and say that HE was the one who was actually fighting in the shittiest boxing era ever...and no wonder he used to look good at demolishing some of these cans...no wonder he was dominating with ease...

Hell this can even be argued for the white guys...most white guys back then used to be monumental cans for all fighters...white american boxers , for some reason have little to nothing in common with what eastern europe is proposing.

 

Those fights were different and you know it. Holyfield was still a highly competitive fighter at 37 as he proved against Lewis. His last hurrah if you like. Louis was not competitive and old and the least said about the sad state of Ali v Holmes the better.

What makes you think a prime Holy would have done any better against Lewis? I think Lewis wil always beat Holyfield. He sort of demonstrated this in their 2 fights as he fought 2 different types of fight and yet still won (or should have won both). Please note when I say this that Holyfield was always a favourite of mine and Lewis more often than not pissed me off with his lethargic, disinterested perfomances. Despite this, he is still the greater HW. Jeez, aren't we supposed to be objective here? I mean, if I copied your stance I'd have Tommy Hearns higher than Ray Leonard at WW.

Tyson is a different matter and I could not be certain who would win between prime Tyson and prime Lewis. Lewis has more options to win any fight though and the Lewis right hand/uppercut may stop Tyson rushing in and blunt his offense somewhat. Tyson didn't knock them all out and one of his greatest weapons, namely intimidation, would not work against the ice-calm Lewis. If I had to put money down I would pick Lewis.

 

I think Holyfield of around 1990 - '93 had an awesome workrate compared to the 1999 version, and was far quicker on his feet, and his threw his jab in twos, threes and fours, really impressive.

Seeing as he gave Lewis at least one close fight in 1999 (the 2nd one) I dont think it's unreasonable to think that as a younger man he might have out-worked Lewis over 12 rounds.

 

Ok ur one of those guys who likes holyfields work ethic, being a blue collar boxer **** like that, so that clouds ur judgement on this issue. Your also biased to Lennox, which is okay, but I'm just letting you know you shouldn't let your personal feelings get in the week of this discussion, it just makes you seem much less knowledgable then you probaly are.
Whenever I let my personal feelings cloud my judgment, I try to take a step back, you should try it ya know.

 

This content is protected

 

Exactly, Bowe and Moorer get propped up because they beat Holyfield, they never accomplished anything else. Truth be told Hasim Rahman was a better heavyweight than Michael Moorer. And that doesn't mean that Rahman is great by any means. Moorer's claim to fame is beating Holyfield and getting KTFO by one punch by a 45 year old man. Yeah Rahman was a terrible champ, but so was Moorer, they hold two of the worst reigns in heavyweight history. Rahman at least beat Lewis and Corrie Sanders, and was competetive against Tua before being stopped. Michael Moorer's best win at heavyweight outside of Holyfield was Frans Botha.

Moorer did NOTHING but beat Holyfield. Bowe did NOTHING but beat Holyfield. But they get propped up because they beat Evander. If they were so special why did they lose to almost every other top level heavyweight they ever fought? Or in Bowe's case, get the **** beat out of them by the only other top level heavyweight they fought and emerge with a couple "wins" because the opponent is a headcase and got himself DQ'd. Let's not kid ourselves, McCall, Rahman and Moorer are all on the same tier. Bowe is a cut above those guys but again I still don't see why Holyfield 's backers bring up the Bowe trilogy as a plus for Evander, he was dominated in the overall scope of the trilogy, his lone win being very narrow and sandwiched in between two emphatic losses. How is that a positive in debate? Sure he beat Bowe, narrowly, one out of three times. He LOST the trilogy, and badly at that. And Bowe never did anything before or after those fights worth mentioning

 

Well they have exactly the same reach actually but I am one of the few on this board that would pick Lewis over Liston. I just think Lewis has more tools and can win more ways than Liston can. Liston was a helluva fighter though and it's a shame that his career seemed to be dictated by ahem, outside interests.

 

On the other hand, Lewis never fought trilogies with Rahman or McCall.
He lost the first encounter with both, then avenged in a rematch.

Same thing Holyfield did with Bowe. He lost the first fight, and won the second.

 

If Lewis had fought them in a rubber match, and LOST, you can bet that it would be held against Lewis and rightfully so

You can't just act like Holyfield's loss in the third Bowe match doesn't count because Lewis never fought a trilogy with anyone. The fact is that Holyfield did fight Bowe 3 times, not two, and lost 2 out of 3 in decisive fashion, and the one he won was by far the closest of the 3 fights. We're talking about real results here, not hypotheticals and what ifs. Holyfield's loss against Bowe in the rubber match absolutely should be counted, he was stopped during his prime and over the course of 3 matches, Bowe clearly and decisively got the best of Holyfield, right in the heart of Holyfield's prime as a heavyweight