another typical yank who can't give the man his dues. Lewis is a heavyweight great plain and simple, live with it!
What do you mean you can't discount losses? It's done all the time. How many boxing fans count Louis's late career loss to Marciano against him? Or suggest that Ali's loss in 1980 to Holmes says anything about his relative greatness when compared to other HWs. No, these losses are rightfully disregarded. So it should be with Holyfield. His late career losses should not be counted against him when assessing his relative claims to greatness. Outside of his loss to Bowe, all of Holyfield's losses occurred after he was past his best. And only the loss to Lewis occured when he was still a factor in the HW division. If you think Holyfield has been a top HW in the last ten years, you haven't been paying attention. He's a "name" HW collecting a paycheck off that name. It's a sad but commmon occurance in pro boxing. And it shouldn't be held against fighters in assessing their overall place in the sport. In time, it won't be.
the fight should have happened before it did. Tyson refused the fight earlier in 1996 and was stripped of his WBC title, either that was King, from a business perspective, didn't want it to happen. either way Lewis would have fought him!
Of course Lennox avenged his two losses: the opponents gave him a rematch! Holyfield can't avenge his "loss" to Valuev because he would never give him one. How on earth do you call that a loss, anyway? Do you think Ibragimov would give Evander a rematch? Holyfield is shot anyway, how can you factor these losses into the discussion anyway? Also, Holyfield never had a glass jaw, whereas Lennox's was shattered twice with one punch. I'll gladly join those who think you're the worst poster on ESB. :hi:
Hoylfield has chosen to continue fighting, and chosen to tarnish his legacy. Whether you discount them or not, he still has losses to John Ruiz, Larry Donald etc. And when he is ranked, these losses will be taken into consideration. His record will always be 43-10-2, and that will count against him. In his absolute prime, Lewis only lost to Hasim Rahman. In his absolute prime, Holyfield lost to Moorer and Bowe twice (One KO loss). In his prime, Holyfields resume tops Lewis's, but it's based on a whole career. And his losses speak volumes.
And thus Lewis has never lost. He was pre-Prime against McCall and past it v Rahman. The difference is he was still better than the rest when he was past it.
Holyfield has been knocked out as many times as Lewis. If you think Lewis has a glass jaw, then you're ******ed. Join who?
Why do people still bring up this glass jaw bull****? The fact is he avenged both of his losses in style.
Look mate, when someone tells me Marvin Hagler's resume is weak, I list his best wins to argue that it was indeed a great resume. Why can't anyone here tell me exactly which fights make Lennox's resume so great? All you guys can do is talk trash about me. I expected to learn something I had missed, but all I've been doing so far is laughing.
Any HW champ should fight the former champs who are still prime. All the best did that, but Lennox did not. He should have fought Chris Byrd and Corrie Sanders, to prove he was the real champ. Instead, he fought Zeljko Mavrovic, Francois Botha, and a completely shot and fat Mike Tyson.
I'd hardly say that he took McCall out in style when McCall was so disturbed that he has a breakdown in the ring. It was nothing short of fighting someone that night who was mentally handicapped