Lennox Lewis VS Joe Louis

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Well the difference between Lewis and Bowe the way I see it is Lewis was simply a smarter fighter. If he had a physical advantage, and he usually did, he would maximize it based on what he (or Manny) thought the main threat was.

If the guy was big and powerful, (ie Golota, Ruddock, etc) he could go into attack mode, if however he thought a fighter was an inside fighter with power, (ie Tua, Tyson) he could be more cautious and use his reach and power advantages to hurt/beat him from a distance.

It's this flexibility to use his attributes that makes him so dangerous, relative to most other large fighters. And those he try to make an argument that Holyfield beat Lewis when they fought, have two flaws in their argument, One is that they fought twice not once, and secondly I've seen his fight (the second one) over 10 times and the best I can score this is 7-5 for Lewis. So over the two fights ignoring the official scoring in the first, a reasonable person could score it 16-8 for Lewis over the two fights. (ie first fight 9-3 Lewis)

 

There have been lots of weak eras, so why hasn't anybody else done it, or come close to doing it?

The curent era is prety darn weak to be honest.

 

I hear you.

I responded that way because the poster I quoted said;

"In fact most all of these all time greats aren't anything so special they could transgress many eras... They are simply FAMOUS and now... HYPED!".

I gave my first match-up thoughts on the second page and since that I've posted my comments throughout this thread. If you are interested.

 

Another BS thread. Lewis beats Louis in one-sided beatdown in 1-2 rounds. Louis lands NOTHING. It's like letting a top 1930 tennis player get in the court with today's Roger Federer. Chances are 1 : 10000000.

 

OK, here is what I got for you.

You think that Louis is a overrated bum by today's standard's and no matter what anyone says. His era was the weakest in history there for making him the weakest champion in history. His reign was 11 years, there for making that almost dozen years a worthless time in heavyweight history. Everything up until Mike Tyson was useless because those guy he fought were bigger in stronger.

OK. What else can I say? I don't have anything else I can say to convince you otherwise. I admire your determination if nothing else.

I also appriecate you helping me think about how to answer these types of questions.

Peace

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

At last, some logic. yikes:yikes

 

The only evidence you have to suport your position is the fact that the size of these fighters is what you say it is.

Everything else is against you here.

 

Janitor, I'm generalizing but even you have to concede that for a smaller fighter to beat a bigger fighter there has to be a significant gap in skills, and/or attributes. skills would be punching power, speed, technique, footwork etc. Attributes would be chin, heart etc. The problem is these gap between these fighters isn't sufficent enough for Louis to overcome all the physical advantages Lewis would have. I think most would give the end to Louis in terms of technical ability, perhaps even heart, but Lewis would have huge advantages, and throughout his career he's demonstrated, perhaps better than any Superheavy in history, how to use these to his advantage. His reach, strength, and power, would all be in his favour. This is basically why weight limits exist in boxing. And except for the heavyweight limit, they are reasonably close. Ie CW is is 175-200 which is a 25lb difference. LW is 168-175 which is 7 pounds. Lewis would have about 40+ lbs.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Joe Louis would annihilate him. Lennox is a guy who gets caught with big punches. He doesn't have a "glass jaw" but when he gets hit flush he isn't getting up. If Hashim Rockman or Oliver McCall can land big rights on prime lennox and lay him out like a lizard, I can't see why the greatest heavyweight boxing technician couldn't? Joe Louis never had trouble beating a tall guy with size, in boxing it is always a small skilled guy like marciano who gives you fits.

 

You probably know nothing about boxing. Joe Louis 67-3, 70 fights. His only losses are to other guys who could easily be ranked in the top 15 all time.

Lennox, 41-2-1 44 fights. He is not even the best fighter of the 90s. He fought in a decent era yet managed to duck the best talent for most of it. He is older than Tyson and was around from those days but chose not to fight Tyson when he was good, chose to duck Holyfield until riddick bowe and Holyfield beat each other to death over 3 fights and he could only eck out a draw after Holyfield had fought all the best fighters of the decade like foreman and holmes, moore, tyson twice, etc. Lennox waited until all the best fighters beat each other up and just struggled to eek out wins. Give Louis another nearly 30 fights and no way he gets just 1 more loss. Klitschko probably would have beat him in a rematch.

You are hard pressed to think of any decent opponent of Lennox that Louis would beat because Lennox never had a decent opponent. The guy was fighting from the 80s yet he waits until 2002 to fight Tyson, seriously, where was Lennox in the 90s?

 

Again, you make this colosal and totaly unwaranted assumption, that is not suported by any significant evidence.

The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that Rahman is not worthy to lace up Louis's gloves in terms of resume, and that he lost to a whole string of opponents who were almost certainly less dangerous than Louis.