Lennox Lewis: the Clever Con-Artist

You actually kinda shot yourself in the foot with that article though:

I've even bolded the important bit for you and everything.

So how was it a duck if Lewis was pushing for Tyson after Seldon?

 

Lewis was older than Tyson and retired years before Tyson and Holyfield, Calzaghe retired years before Hopkins and Jones.
What boxers were nearer to retirement when they fought ?

 

You think he broke down because of the way Lewis fought for 3 1/2 minutes?

At least you agree that McCall was already in a fragile state.

Making a mentally disturbed person cry doesn't count as taking someone out in style in my book. It's no better than pulling the legs off spiders.

 

This is the essence of my argument, along with Holyfield fighting fresher versions of the top fighters of the era than Lewis did, and Lewis getting taken out in the heart of his career twice.

Does anybody really care about how fighters looked knocking out tomato cans early in their career, or what they did when they were so old they had all the skills of a high-grade journeyman? No, what counts most are what they did against the top fighters of their era when they were at their best.

 

Sure McCall was already mentally in a fragile state, but Lewis pushed him over the edge when McCall realised he was outclassed and couldn't just turn up and KO him again.

I guess we'll have to just disagree.

 

Exactly

Didn't Pac lose in like his 12th fight?
Didn't Hopkins lose his first pro fight?

This means **** all when assessing their places in history

 

I would agree with you if the fight went on longer but I find your argument hard to swallow after such a short period of time.

Anyway, as you say, we'll agree to disagree on this one

 

I agree with you guys on this issue though, definitely.

People focus way too much on a fighters losses, past prime, green or otherwise.

It's what a fighter does at their physical best that matters the most, and that's how we should asses them.

Anyway this **** is getting annoying now, I'm off to get wasted again.

Happy New Year.

 

Peak Holy. Peak Mercer. Peak Ruddock. Peak Bruno. Peak just about everyone.

Holy was going to kill Lewis! He was on top of his game. Lewis was going to get raped!

 

Boxing has a mental element too, which is why Lewis gets credit for the win against Bowe.

Bowe quit.

 

Well then I guess it comes down to what criteria you use to rank fighters in a historical sense. Whether a fighter loses later in his career, whether he continues fighting past his prime, speaks volumes about the fighter IMO. There isn't much difference between Holyfields wins at the top and Lewis's anyway, Holy might have the edge, but I feel Lewis's prime was longer, and he beat a wider range of good fighters. Rankings are based on careers. A career covers every fight the fighter has had. Pacquiao has still lost to Torrecampo and 3K Battery, and if Khan goes on to become a great fighter, he will still have lost to Prescott.

When ranking a fighter, I take into account ever single fight. You don't. I'm fine with agree to disagree. We both have different methods of ranking. I'm just surprised they produce such different results.

 

A 100 year old man. Crap. Crap. Crap.

(According to some people on here)

 

Disagree, why do you only count what a fighter does at their very best? One of the most impressive things Lewis did was beat Vitali when he (LL) was old and out of shape. You can't just look at what they do in the few years of their 'prime' cos then you are ignoring factors like longevity and the ability to adapt to being an older fighter and getting by when not 'prime'.

 

Good post.