Lennox Lewis is overrated

Also, from memory I think it was a draw on the cards at the time of the stoppage, so it was hardly a clinic by Bruno.

The memory of this fight is affected is the same way as the memory of the Mercer fight for a lot of fans - they tend to think Lewis did worse that he actually did simply because the other guy did better than expected.

Similar to the way people get the impression that Tarver was robbed in the RJJ I fight. Watch it again without expecting Tarver to get blown out and you'll realize that he did good, but not THAT good. Just better than expected.

 

Brunos skills were underrated for sure, but you obviously have a different opinion on 'outboxed' to me, it's like saying VITLAY outboxed Lewis when in reality Lewis changed his style of fighting because he knew the other guy was going to be out of there before the scorecards became relevent.

 

What did you have to go and bring that up for?? :yikes

 

Where has Radar gone to? :huh

 

He's become a very infrequent poster over these last 18 months or so.
Think it's something called 'real life' keeping him busy, I don't quite grasp the concept myself...

 

Ah my cunning plan worked. Type a load of old rubbish and my avatar will distract anyone from actually reading it.

Just agree with me.

 

Ironic you should say that the amateurs mean nothing when you're having a pop at Amir Khan for being Flash KO'd in the amauteurs...

Lennox has a better resume than Holyfield, Tyson and any other belt holders in the 1990's. He beat Holyfield twice, & Tyson he KO'd. Bowe didn't wanna fight Lewis...

He's beaten everyman he's faced, rectifying his earlier defeats to Mccall and Rahman. Anyone can really get KO'd or sucker punched in boxing. Especially at HW level! unless you're Oliver Mccall then you'd still stand up to a truck if it hit you on the chin.

He was the best fighter in the past 20 years at HW, end of discussion.

 

Actually, I think Holyfield's record IS PROOF of his greatness at heavyweight.
I dont need to dowmplay the losses to Moorer and Bowe, nor do I need to need to "overhype" any of his wins. It is what it is.

You want to attack Bowe's ability as a boxer but he was clearly very good. Tell me how many challengers to, say, Larry Holmes, or Lennox Lewis, during their championship reigns were as good as Bowe ?

Attacking Holyfield's standing as a great heavyweight is ridiculous.

BTW, I do think Holyfield was over-the-hill by the time he fought and beat Tyson, and I think he was a better fighter a few years earlier. That's just the way I see it.
Generally, fighters' primes do NOT last for 8 or 9 years, and fighters who start peaking in their mid-20s ARE in decline by their early 30s. There are exceptions of course but Holyfield never looked like one of them, he certainly looked like he was slowing down around '93 or '94, lost his youthful speed. That's the reason no one gave him a chance versus Tyson.

I make NO excuses for his losses up until 1999. I dont need to.
And you can include the Lennox Lewis fights too, where Holyfield was 36 and 37 years old.
He lost fair and square, TWICE. And Lewis was a great fighter, so where's the shame in that ?

Riddick Bowe had the beating of Holyfield, so did Michael Moorer. No excuses.
But surely I'm allowed to point out that Holyfield also beat both of them when they were still world-class fighters - or is that "overhyping his wins" ?

I'm just asking people to give the guy credit for what he's done in boxing.
He's one of the great heavyweights, undisputedly. And no amount of negative spin will convince me otherwise.

 

What you know about reign of Bowe? :hey Very old Fergusson and Dokes?
:rofl Well I tell you - pre-Lewis Golota was no worse than Bowe. And I have a fact. Golota crushed Bowe and pushed him from the boxing. While Golota definetly not best Lewis opponent.
Larry Holmes indeed hadnt a comparable to Bowe challenger.

 

Actually, Holyfield-Holmes was fairly one-sided.
Holmes made Holyfield look silly a couple of times off the ropes in the early rounds taking a few crafty pot-shots, but that's it. Even in the couple of rounds he did that he was possibly outworked by Holyfield.

I mean seriously, Larry Holmes strolled around almost the entire fight just trying to survive. After the first four rounds he just looked old and desperate, used all his cageyness to survive the fight.

Holmes might have won 2 or 3 rounds the entire fight, if I'm generous. Holyfield won at least 9 or 10.
"Reasonably close" is not a description I'd use.

The Holmes who fought Holyfield was arguably in better form than the Holmes who fought Tyson, because he was coming off a clear win over Ray Mercer.

(still, I agree 100%, Tyson was more impressive against Holmes)

And since Ray Mercer was unbeaten and 4 years younger than the version who gave Lennox Lewis hell then I suppose Holmes was a more impressive fighter at 42 than Lewis was age 30, if I borrow that logic.

 

Who's talking about the reign of Bowe ? :huh

Well, I'm talking about the 1992 Bowe. You can argue that he was as good afterwards, but that's debatable.
If you distinguish between a "pre-Lewis" Golota and a "post-Lewis" Golota then I assume you acknowledge that fighters can decline from one fight to the next.
So, how about considering that Golota fought a declined Bowe, or that Lewis fought a "post-Bowe" Golota ?

I dont really care, all I know for sure is that Bowe was a real good "live" young fighter when he challenged Holyfield.
And many of the great heavyweights never fight any of those types during their entire reigns. The fact is Holyfield LOST, and came back to regain the championship in a rematch.

And Holmes was still great.

 

I give him all the credit in the world for his overall career.

He's one of the great P4P fighters, undisputedly.
But his Heavyweight career just isn't quite as impressive as Lennox's.

On a list of ATG fighters I'd have him above Lennox. But not on a ATG HW list.

 

I prefer it that some try and ignore their own prejudices. It may surprise you that I was a bigger fan of Holyfield than I was of Lewis for most of their careers but when it comes to ranking both fighters I do so objectively. For example, I would love to say that Thomas Hearns was a better WW than SRL but I cannot on the balance of evidence, most specifically that Leonard beat Hearns. When comparing Lewis and Holyfield you seem to ignore any factual evidence if it doesn't support your opinion.

No, some facts are indeed facts, such as the fact that Holyfield has never beaten Lewis in 2 attempts. That my friend is a FACT, whether you like it or not. You are correct to say that Lewis was taken out early by 2 B level HWs. But you constantly a) ignore the fact that Lewis avenged both losses, b) that he paid the price for being sloppy/out of condition and c) ignore similar inept performances by Holyfield.

Who's fault is it that Lewis did not fight Tyson or Holyfield earlier or Bowe not at all? If it isn't the fault of Lewis, why do you continually dredge it up as a black mark against the man?

Objectivity can be this, but more simply it's about looking at all the facts and giving an emotionless and prejudice-free opinion as far as is possible on a subject. You appear to make very little effort to do even this on the subject at hand.

I don't believe I overrate Lewis, but I have him as the best HW of his era. Holyfield would have to win at least a fractional belt and possibly beat the best HW of this current era (Wlad or perhaps Vitaly) for me to rank him above Lewis. If he does so then it would be fantastic but I can't see him beating either of the Klitschkos at this stage in his career. They would be tough fights for even a prime Holyfield.

 

Larry Holmes earned his shot by beating the undefeated Ray Mercer.
This was in summer 1992.
Mike Tyson had just gone to jail. He was unavailable.
Lewis and Bowe hadn't yet beaten anyone as highly-ranked as Ray Mercer.
Razor Ruddock was re-building himself after two defeats to Tyson.

Holmes had the best recent win over a ranked contender. He was as viable as any of the younger guys.

Holyfield fought Foreman for the money, and the public wanted it. Foreman had fought a string of tomato cans, and didn't really deserve a shot. But he was still no push-over.

After getting KO'd by McCall, Lewis fought Lionel Butler, Justin Fortune, Tommy Morrison and Ray Mercer ....... all Americans apart from Justin Fortune, an Australian who really did not belong in the ring with Lewis.

Most of the best heavyweights in the 1990s were AMERICANS.

And Lewis didn't fight Dokes, Douglas, Bowe or Moorer.

Wait a second.
When Holyfield came through as number 1 heavyweight contender, Morrison was just turning pro. When Holyfield was champion, Morrison got KO'd when he stepped up to fight Mercer - and then Mercer lost to Holmes !
But you'd prefer if Holyfield fought Morrison !
David Tua was not even a pro until '92 or '93 !
Same with Golota, he came through when Holyfield's heyday was over.
Ruddock's the only one who was a legit top contender of Holyfield's reign and era.
And Holyfield was set to fight Tyson (who had just eliminated Ruddock) twice in the early 90s, but Tyson messed up/pulled out.

Holmes was a more viable contender than Morrison or Mercer, that's a fact.
And Bowe was better than all of them.
I suppose Holyfield should have ducked Bowe and fought Morrison instead.
He probably would have KO'd Tommy and you'd give him all the props in the world.


I would never argue that Holyfield always fought the best and never fought a single soft-touch. They all fight a few patsys. But it's easy to pick out a few top contenders he never faced and try to twist it like he fought lesser fighters. Truth is, Holyfield fought and beat a lot of good contenders.