Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

It proves that one fighter didn't want to fight the other, probably of fear of losing. If he has lost to him before (even in the amateurs) it looks even worse.

Also, Lewis did better against common opponents.

What you and others continually skirt is that Lewis himself was getting on in years when they fought. He was only three years younger than a Holyfield who almost 10 years later should have won a belt (Valuev's) if he got the decision he deserved.

He was 37 when he beat a 36-year old Tyson. Sure, he was closer to his prime than Tyson, but not by as much as some like to suggest. And he absolutely dominated Tyson.

 

Holyfield probably the best of the early 90's, but would have a better claim overall using your logic considering he beat Bowe in his prime, and Tyson earlier. I prefer saying
Tyson was the best of the mid to late 80's
Holyfield the best in the early to mid 90's
Lewis from the mid 90's to early 2000

 

There is no denying Holyfield was not the same fighter, nor was Tyson in my opinion. Lewis came into his own later in his career, he even said himself referring to himself as a fine wine, getting better with age. Holyfield was a pro for what 14 years when they fought and been through a ton of ring wars. Tyson was merely a side show at the time he fought Lewis.
You're right, there is merit to Bowe and Tyson avoiding Lewis in fear of losing, but there was also a money and promoter thing involved which is another story in itself.
You cant elevate a fighter over another fighter just assuming he automatically wins because the fight didnt come off for whatever reason. I prefer to judge a fighter on what actually happened and what was the timing in which it happened.

 

It shows that the fighter was afraid of you, especially when you've already knocked him out in the biggest amateur stage, the final of the Olympics.

But why should Bowe be discussed? He is clearly not the best of the 90's.

I don't think you understand the idea of "the best of the 90's". The idea is who has the best resume during the 90's, not who scored the best wins during their prime. Is Joe Louis the best of the 50's because he would've beaten Walcott, Charles and Marciano had he been in his prime? Holyfield twice lost to Lewis during the 90's and that's a pretty big strike against his case to be called the best of the 90's. Especially when Lewis has been equally good or better throughout the same 90's.

You can keep re-defining the criteria just so Holyfield comes out on top. How about we say "Whoever defeated Bowe in 1992 but lost twice to him later, is the best heavyweight of the 90's" ?

 

Because Bowe at his best and the Tyson, Foreman, Moorer, Mercer and Holmes that Holyfield fought, were better than anything Lewis fought.
In that case its Holyfield.

 

Yes Lewis fought no one that good in the 90s, he fought the exact same Mercer, he fought the Golota that battered Bowe, the Morrison who schooled Foreman, because Holyfield himself isnt as good as all those men, and destroyed the Rudduck who had 2 close fights with Tyson.

This is going round in circles so I dont know why I reply

 

As I said, Lewis was closer to his prime. But he was past it himself at least for the Tyson fight. And that Tyson was only a sideshow for guys like you who always exagerrate how declined their favourite fighters were when they got soundly trashed. By calling Tyson shot when facing Holy and Bowe shot when facing Golota you have shot your credibility here.

The fact is that Tyson had his perhaps best perfomance (Golota) post prison not long before fighting Lewis. He certainly wasn't what he had been, but still a live and dangerous opponent and Lewis picked him apart arguably worse than any ATG ever has been picked apart in a title fight.

 

Yeah he actually knocked Mercer down to seal his victory where Lewis's win was more questionable. Ruddock your right a big circle.
Im not saying Lewis didnt fight anyone, but personally I dont consider his competiton as great as Holyfield's. Lewis was also knocked out by guys who couldnt carry old Foremans and Holmes jockstrap. Holyfield didnt lose to guys like that in the 90's.

 

Cmon, I think your over exxagerating things. Lewis was a full time fighter. Tyson was alive, I dont know about live.
And Lewis gets all these mythical passes, and assumptions he would come out victorious over all the fights that never came off, by cleaning up the scraps of other fighters.
He would have destroyed Riddick Bowe because after losing the first round he got a questionable stoppage in the second round of the Olympics, when they were kids!
He would have always beaten Mike Tyson because he beat Ruddock in two rounds after Tyson had faced him in two tough subsequent fights.
You're right, he beat the best Mike Tyson, even though he fought him over two years after the Golota fight and Tyson went on to lose his next two of three before retiring.
He beat an awesome Golota whose entire legacy like Ruddock was based on losses to a world class fighter, who by most peoples view were past their best.
He also beat the best Evander Holyfield because Evander was coming off a huge win over prime Tyson and a ripped Moorer.
Its like whats happening with Vitali Klitshko. Hes been elevated to this mythical platform long before his championship accomplishments for his loss against Lennox Lewis, who was old and tired. Sorry I just dont go for it.

 

This post is drivel. Instead of answering my actual arguments you answer claims I've never made. Solely because you know you got nothing.

When it comes to pure bias you're one of the worst posters on this site. Let's have a go at picking apart your favourites legacies in the same manner:

Tyson's best wins: Trevor "Did what?" Berbick, Tony "My best achievment is beating Douglas" Tucker, Larry "Age and Rust" Holmes, Pinklon "Twelve Steps" Thomas and Michael "Please get me the **** out of here!" Spinks.

Bowe's best wins: Evander "Let's try and brawl this one" Holyfield, Evander "Let's try and brawl again even though I'm effing sick" Holyfield, nothing, more nothing, then Tony "Now old as well as fat" Tubbs.

This is how it looks when one make the very most of how has-been or never-was a particular fighters opponents were. Even if we do it in this mode Lewis comes out better than most.

 

Isnt this a boxing discussion. Just because I dont agree with you doesnt mean you have to get so angry. Dont be a magoo and take it personally. Who said anything about Tyson being ahead of Lewis in the 90's? Arent we down to discussing who was the better fighter of the 90's between Lewis and Holyfield.
We can do the same thing with Lewis comp cant we. Tysons comp and Holyfields comp for that matter certainly has more championship pedigree, better overall fighters in my opinion.

Tua was a fat slob after splitting from Main Events
Briggs was coming off a loss to Wilson a club fighter and was overhyped
Grant was overhyped by HBO
GOlota was overhyped for losing to Bowe who retired and noone else.
Akinwande was garbage and a Don King manufactured champion
Mcall II was taken out of a crack house months prior to train for his mandatory that DOn King got him
Mavrovic accomplished nothing but an overated undefeated record, etc. See we can do it for Lewis too.
Do I think Lewis was a great fighter? Hell yeah. Do I think his competition was somewhat overated, yes I do. Do I think things would have been different for him had he come into his tougher fights in the late 80's or early 90's, yep. But thats my opinion.

 

I'm not angry. Just don't think it's worthwhile discussing with you, since you don't really engage in discussion, but just follow your own agenda. This last post is a point in case. It's clear that you didn't really read my previous post, and just push your own case without relating to the actual arguments that have been made. I get no joy from such discussion, and therefore end this one.

 

Because I dont agree with you, but thats fine. You dont have an agenda either? Cmon..

 

I've no feelings about Lewis one way or the other. I think he was exciting to watch at times, and overly cautious and boring to watch at other times. I just rate his record and his ability h2h, because I think there are good reasons to do so.

I would possibly feel a bit more antagonistic towards him if there popped up pathetic excuses about how terribly out of shape he was those times he lost etc, etc. I e if he started to get the same following that for example Dempsey, Duran and Tyson have. But hopefully I'd still give him his due, as for example I give Duran his due as one of the top 5-10 ever p4p.

 

And Foreman, Holyfield and Holmes lost to men not fit to carry Lennox's jockstrap, these things happen in boxing when your constantly fighting the best. Unlike those men Lewis avenged all his losses.

Its easy to focus on the negativities of a mans career. Lets do it with Holyfield:

1. Nearly got stopped in his 'prime' by journeyman Bert Cooper
2. Couldnt hurt or stop ancient old HWs like Foreman/Holmes both stopped years before when they were better despite being in his prime
3. Lost to a chinny fat LHW and a fat MW later on
4. Lost 2-1 to a fat poor defensive HW in Bowe
5. Avoided by hitting HWs in their prime as a Champion like Lennox, Rudduck, Morrison, Tua, Ibeaubuchi.
6. Never beat a big quality HW in his prime

See easy