Yeah that's why they all fought him except Bowe lol and Tyson took the fight when he knew he wasn't in shape, if that's ducking i'm Don King
The Lewis nuthuggers on here take it very personally if you question the greatness of the object of their hero worship. And it's only gotten worse over time. When I first joined this forum, they were arguing that he was top ten - which is itself highly debatable. Over time they've now started to get even more ridiculous - moving him into the top five. They can't seem to accept that it is hardly obvious, or not debatable, that he was better than Holyfield, or even Tyson. You never saw those guys blown out early by mediocre fighters. Anyway, it's always good to see boxing fans who recognize when a fighters is clearly overrated! Keep up the good work!:good
BS. Name one besides Louis. Walcott and Moore were current champions when Marciano fought them. It's the non-believers who think they were shot. Ezzard Charles was 33 years old, not at his very best but close enough to it for the fight to matter. Only Louis fits your description. But he was on an 8-fight winning streak after losing a decision to champ Ezzard Charles. The thing I can't stand about Lennox is that he actually did it on purpose. He sat in England fighting bums while the best fighters were all slugging it out in America. Lennox actually waited for them to get old. Marciano had to fight a few old guys just like everyone does. Hell, Ali fought Archie Moore when the guy was 46! But Lennox waited for the grapes to become raisins.
What do you mean his weak resume? His resume tops any other fighter from his era or after his era. Prove that Lennox ducked Sanders please. Wlad had 2 embarrasing losses to a club fighter and Sanders, he wasn't ranked, so there was no reason for Lewis to fight him. That is like saying Lewis ducked Fres Oquendo. Just becuase the fight didn't happen (because the opponent was below par) doesn't mean he ducked the fighter. Your logic is childish. What I wrote about you was me pointing out that you are a biased idiot who presents views without any clear evidence to back them up. I used to think you were a good poster, but all you seem to do is baselessly criticise fighters with no good reason. Name me one fighter from Lewis's era with a better resume than him. You can't. If Holyfield had retired 10 years earlier, maybe his resume would be better, but sadly it's not. You're argument is weak.
Walcott was 38, and was winning the fight handily until a lucky punch, and Archie Moore was 41 and coming up in weight. Both managed to drop him too. At least Lewis completely dominated a 37 year old Holyfield the first time around. Or are you going to tell me the draw was legit.
Talk all the **** you want newcomer, but I've been a member in good standing here for over nearly 6 years, and a boxing fan for about 35 years. I actually followed boxing back in the Ali era. You can try to use all Holyfield's past-prime losses against guys like Ruiz or Donald to discredit his record, but when he was at his best in 90s, he was the greatest fighter of the era, the greatest HW since Ali. And there are some boxing fans who don't buy the Lewis mythology, thank goodness!
As I said before, if Holyfield had retired 10 years earlier, his resume would be better than Lewis's. But he didn't, and he faces the consequences of that when he is ranked. You can't jsut discount those losses, they happened, and they happened to atrocious opposition, they affect his legacy. You can't pick and choose the criteria you rank people on. Holy has lot to these fighters, and the losses are counted. End of story. I'm also pretty sure, that if Lewis had lost to the likes of Larry Donald and John Ruiz, you would criticise him to no end for it. But because Holyfield is American, and you are ridiculously biased, you allow them to pass. It annoys me that someone with so much experience of watching boxing and following the sport, could act so ignorant. It's sad to see.
Holyfield has a great resume, just as good as Lewis'. He was way too inconsistent to be the best Heavyweight of the 90's though, losing a decision to Moorer and going 1-2 against Riddick Bowe (who Lewis beat easily in the olympics). Although in all fairness to Holyfield he did beat Moorer decisively in the rematch.
Thank you sir! When you follow boxing for 35 years, you develop some contextual understanding that helps you to evaluate fighters' standing - one that is isn't affected by the influence of trends or fan opinions. Lewis is a great fighter, but nowhere as great as his supporters suggest. I suspect that over time, there will be a more reasonable evaluation of where Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis stand in boxing history.
Do we just ignore the fact that he also lost to Bowe twice, lost to Moorer, Lewis beat him (+ that ridiculous draw) in addition to all the embaressing defeats he's picked up by carrying on too long? Lewis HW resume > Holyfield HW resume esp. considering the 2 fights between them
Lennox retired after his only legitimate title defence.He got lucky.Vitali is a much better fighter.Im glad, I prefer the Klitschko's as champions.
Lewis has the better Heavyweight resume. But counting Holyfield's Cruiserweight resume, and the fact that he came up in weight... they're about level pegging for me. I like Lewis slightly more personally though.
