Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

It's a little difficult to buy the notion that Lewis was the dominant fighter of the entire decade of the 90s when for most of the decade the biggest, most significant fights didn't involve Lewis.

For instance, when someone says Ali was the dominant fighter of the 70s, someone new to boxing could go back and look and see all of the action that Ali was involved in: FOTC, Ali-Frazier II, The Rumble in the Jungle, The Thrilla in Manila, the Ali-Norton Trilogy, not to mention Ali's fights against other solid contenders like Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle, Young, Shavers, etc.

If someone new to boxing was told Lewis was the dominant fighter of the entire 90s and then they went back into a time machine, they'd be totally confused. Rightly or wrongly, Lewis was under the radar for a very long period of time. Most of the major action in the first half (or even 2/3) of the decade involved Holyfield.

Here is a summary of the mega fights in boxing throughout the 90s: Tyson-Douglas, (Tyson goes to Prison), Holyfield-Bowe I, Holyfield-Bowe II (Fan Man Fight), Foreman-Moorer, (Tyson gets out of prison and everyone pays attention to him), Holyfield-Tyson I, Holyfield-Tyson II, Lewis-Holyfield I, Lewis-Holyfield II.

Of course, it is not entirely Lewis' fault that he didn't have the commercial appeal of some of his American counterparts and that he didn't get all the big fights. That's why it would be inaccurate to say Holyfield was the dominant fighter of the 90s. Lewis was beating some really solid people behind the scenes while everyone was paying attention to Holyfield or Tyson (or Foreman, or Bowe, or ...). It's not fair to penalize Lewis for not being as popular as others. But it's also inaccurate to pretend that Lewis was at the center of most of the major fights in the 90s (as one might expect of the dominant fighter of the decade).

It is very telling when you look at what a big deal Lewis made out of his win over Tyson. He went on and on about how it solidified his legacy. If it was so easy to single out Lewis as the best of the 90s, why would he have been so concerned about his legacy two years after the 90s ended? The truth is, Lewis himself knew he hadn't gotten the recognition he wanted. That's not necessarily a knock on Lewis' abilities, but it is indicative of the level of recognition Lewis had coming out of the 90s.

I don't think there was a single dominant fighter for the entire decade of the 90s. If you ask me, Holyfield was the dominant figure in the first half, and Lewis in the second half. They probably deserve equal billing over the entire decade.

 

That's why I said "ALMOST as inaccurate".

 

Yep, this basically sums up lefthook in a nutshell. The guy has yet to respond to a sound argument with a reasonable answer.. instead he ignores the points he can't refute, which is usually about 97% of a person's entire post..

Right again. And when he damn well knows that he can't make a case for one fighter topping another, he simply throws them into the " equal " pile.

 

But there's no "almost" about it. Of the big 70's fighters Holmes beat Norton, Shavers and an absolute shell of Ali. That's it. Of the big 90's fighters Lewis beat old and faded but still live versions of Tyson and Holyfield + Ruddock, Tua, Briggs, Mercer, Golota, Morrisson, Bruno and some decent third tier opponents.

 

Good post. Those tough fights also have to be considered when considering the actual reality of a fighter in his future fights. Maybe Mr Bokaj would understand this a little better.

 

Sorry to disappoint you.:good

Ps. Just have to point out that Holyfield had had many of his wars before he faced Tyson. He had also had medical problems and he was 34-years old. This must surely mean that it was a shell of a man that whupped Tyson's behind, mustn't it?

I just love this. When a 34-year old, battleworn Holyfield (with a medical history to boot) beats the living crap out of Tyson, it means nothing because the younger, less worn Tyson is shot. But when Holyfield three years later is clearly beaten by Lewis that means nothing because now Holyfield is shot.

This is not thought through.

 

So what you're saying here, is that the fact that Lewis' lack of marketibility made him underrated by many for a long time should be held against him now as well?

 

Seriously I dont understand your point? Why do you think this has anything to do with Tyson?
I dont believe Tyson was the same fighter after he emerged from prison ever, from McNeely to McBride.
I dont believe Holyfield was the same fighter after his loss to Moorer.
I dont think Lewis was the same fighter after the second Rahman fight.
I dont think Bowe was the same fighter after the third Holyfield fight.

Shot, that word is used fairly loosely. In my opinion age means little really, especially as in the case of Lewis who certainly came into his own at a later age and hadnt been put through the meat grinder too many times. He was also a clean living man, in stark contrast to Tyson and Bowe.
Sitting in the can for three years, or going through five or six ring wars, health problems, those are definitive contributors to a fighters decline.
As in the case of Golota where you think Im being bias, I said Tyson was at the best he could be and prepared to fight for the title. He was active, fighting four or five fights over a two year period, meaning he was in shape and consistently in the gym. Tyson then took a year off before facing Nielson and then Lewis. There was a marked improvement in his performances after the Botha fight. That idle time was a factor, just as it was a factor when Tyson emerged from another one year jail sentence to face Botha.
Like I told another guy, there are just too many factors that contribute to a fighters win or lose over another opponent. I try to factor that into everything I post, including about Lennox Lewis who tends to hit a sore spot with a lot of people on here.

 

No but it cant be counted in his favor either. You have to factor the fights that actually took place. If you time warped back to 1994 for example would Lennox Lewis be held in such high regard? He was coming off a tough fight to Bruno and was knocked out by Mcall. Holyfield had just regained his title to Riddick Bowe.
Its easy to look back now at all his accomplishments and say he would have done this or that, but the fact is he really didnt become the dominate force until the mid 90's.

 

There's so much historical revisionism going into the 1990s heavyweight history, it's laughable.

If I didn't know better I'd be thinking Tyson came out of jail, KO'd Bruno in 3 rounds but was scared shitless of Lennox Lewis.
I be thinking Frank Bruno was scared shitless of Lewis too, and chose to be mauled by Tyson for a second time instead of facing the man who'd just beaten the mighty Tommy Morrison.
I'd think Ray Mercer was more or less an all-time great.
I'd be thinking Tyson was shot to hell in 1996 and was beaten by a PEAK Holyfield.
I'd be thinking Don King Production's mission statement was to protect heavyweight boxers from the scourge called Lennox Lewis, (rather than to tie up and control every top heavyweight with all sort of options and claues).

 

It's pretty easy to detect your factors. When your guy looses he's on the slide. That's the factor you use.

Looking at pure facts: Holyfield would go on many years after losing to Lewis, with mixed perfomances. But his perfomance against Valuev showed there's still some left in him loooong after losing to Lewis. He was further from his prime than Lewis, but it's not like there was nothing left. Lewis had probably also passed his peak.

Tyson had only lost to one man in twelve years when facing Lewis. Yes, he was at least that many years past his best, but had showed himself still to be a force. Lewis, who at 37 was several years past his own prime, absolutely demolished him. It could well be argued that even Holmes wasn't that superior to Ali. Tysons' own words that he never could have beaten Lewis doesn't at all sound crazy when you watch the fight.

Besides this Lewis was ducked by Bowe and have wins over 7-8 of the best of the decade. Except from Tyson and Bowe (who edged him in a series) Holyfield has few really convincing wins over the top contenders of the 90's. Next to Tyson, Foreman and Holmes are probably the best he has a plus statistic against of the 90's crop. Besides Holyfield and Tyson, Lewis has plus statistics against at least a half dozen of the decades best. How can he not top Holyfield during this decade?

Tyson has wins over about three of the best of the 90's fighters - Ruddock, Golota and Bruno. But Lewis beat them as well, and Tyson was comprehensively beaten by an older Holyfield and an older Lewis. Whatever you think of those defeats there can be no possible argument to have Tyson above or even with Lewis concerning achievements against the 90's fighters.

Bowe had his wins over Holyfield. That's what he accomplished against the best of the decade. Not even close to being close to Lewis.

Hence, Lewis showed himself to be the top dog in this decade.

This is where I bowe out (really this time). This has been going on for too long.

 

How are Lewis vs Holyfield fights not significant 90's fights? They're the first unification bout since Tyson more than a decade earlier, after the Foreman mess.


And again, it's kind of hard being in more significant fights when both Bowe and Tyson dropped their belts to avoid you. You can only beat who wants to climb in the ring with you. Doesn't take anything away from his dominance.

 

It has nothing to do about being my guy. It has everything to do with consistency, meaning winning performing at the top level, and losing mainly to inferior competition. I think the points in those fighters careers were a clear starting point of inconsistency, maybe being generous for Bowe who I felt started slipping after the first Holyfield fight and Tyson after Spinks, Lewis after Tua (mainly for lack of interest, not training correctly taking things as seriously).
Lewis is interesting because he is one of the few fighters in the history of the sport that came into his best late in his career, but the proof is there, he had a very nice run before he started slipping. I can only think of Bernard Hopkins as being somewhat similar.
I know you mentioned Holyfield, but its hard to imagine Valueav even being in the top ten in the early 90's let alone being a world champion.

 

That was the late 90's or the second half which is the point I believe he was making as was I.

 

So the late or second half of the 90's are not part of the 90's?

Like i said, you just have to redefine the criteria so that Holyfield can crawl out on top.