Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

nobodies perfect. Thanks for the correction. Just getting a little pissed with these hidden agendas.

 

Well at least I know that I'm not the only one who sees it.

 

You and Bokaj, noone else, most likely hes riding your bagpipes, but I dont care. You're the worst at attacking people if they dont agree with you, and thats certainly a fact, and maybe the reason so many people have called you not very nice things.

 

No, I mean during the fights. Bowe was ready to be taken, and Golota threw the fights away. That's a fact.
Golota lost the fights. Anyone who saw the fights must have been impressed by Golota's lack of mental discipline as much as his boxing ability.
It's almost hard to find words to express how flakey Golota proved himself to be, in spite of his "destruction" of Bowe. He found a way to lose, he folded dramatically, a complete melt-down.
Unless you pretend that Golota won, there's no other way of viewing it.

I'm not downgrading anything.
I'm telling the true history.

No, I dont forget that. I mentioned his 1-2 record against Bowe just a few posts ago.
Bowe was a bit out of shape in the 2nd Holyfield fight, yes. But when we get into that kind of thing it's never-ending, since MOST 90s heavyweights were out of shape.
But, hey, I'll put my hands up and admit I'm quick to point out that Ray Mercer was out of shape against Lewis, 14 pounds heavier than against Holyfield. How often do you qualify the close Lewis win over Mercer with "... but Mercer was out-of-shape" ?
Yes, Bowe was out-of-shape.

I wasn't making excuses for Holyfield in particular. All fighters have good days and bad days, even when they are champion. Lewis had bad days. He got KO'd by McCall on a bad day. And Holyfield lost a close fight to Moorer on a bad day. What's wrong with saying so ?

If the "injured" thing sounds like an excuse, I'll just refer to it as a "bad performance". That's okay with me, it's just that I thought we would all agree on that simple point, since it seemed clear to the ringsiders and the TV viewers that something was wrong with Holyfield's shoulder from the way he way fighting and the things he was saying in the corner. I didn't expect the comment to spark any controversy. And in no way is it meant as an 2excuse"

Yes, McCall was a mediocre boxer. Bruno beat him about 9-3 or 10-2 on my scorecard. McCall was big and strong and durable but not much of a boxer. Moorer was a decent southpaw boxer with a nice jab.

I dont remember calling Tua that.
And so what ?
I dont see the relevance of Tua-Moorer, a fight that happened 8 years after Moorer beat Holyfield, 5 years after Holyfield beat Moorer.
Yes, Tua hits like a truck. What's the point ?

End of your story, because you seem to attach some importance to "proving" that Lewis dominated the 90s heavyweight division or is "clearly the best case" for number 1 of the decade.

For me, I'm just interested in accurate historical account. I dont feel a need to diminish or bolster anyone. I'm willing to listen to arguments in favour of Bowe or even Tyson being included too. But it's a shame anyone who dares to compare or contradict gets attacked by the Lewis fanatics here.

I've laid out Holyfield's credentials that might be superior to Lewis's in previous posts. Factual stuff.
It's actually worth considering. He entered the decade as number 2 behind Tyson and ended as number 2 behind Lewis. But Lewis wasn't even ranked in 1990 and Tyson wasn't worthy as of end of 1999, and all what happened between we have covered and will continue to cover.
I try to be fair in my assessments. What else can I do. :good

 

Maybe that's cause' no one else wastes their time on responding to your bull****. Now go polish up your boxing knowledge so that you can actually contribute something useful to the board.

 

I should take a page out of Unforgiven's diplomacy book. Couldnt have said it any better. :good

 

True history is also that Golota kicked Bowe's ass BAD, when Holyfield got knocked out by that same Bowe just months earlier. No matter how you look at it, to annihilate that guy in 90 seconds IS impressive.

It has special relevance here, because Holyfield lost when Bowe was in good shape, but won when Bowe was in bad shape.

On a sidenote - i think Holyfield could've won the first fight if he boxed smart, instead of letting his minority complex take over and slug it out. But he never proved that.

Okay.

Moorer had better boxing skills, yes, but he was very fragile. He was a **** hair away from being stopped by Bert Cooper. In the end, Moorer is just as much, or more mediocre than McCall. Of course, neither of them really is mediocre, but hey.

The point is that you partially discredit Lewis' win over Golota because he was fragile. Well, so was Moorer, but he beat Holyfield. And Lewis easily beat Tua, who destroyed Moorer as well as many others.

I'm not saying Lewis dominated the 90's. Too much talent for a single man to dominate. But i do think he has the best record. If one includes the years 2000-2003, then it's not even close.

I do admit that Holyfield has a fine record. But to me, when there are two guys close in accomplishment, but one holds two wins over the other, he takes the cookie.

 

Just because you beat the man who beat the man, doesnt make you THE man. Thats a common problem on this forum.
To me Golota proved Bowe was more shot than Golota being some great fighter. Bowe was shaky in the third fight with Holyfield and went on to retire after the Golota fights. Golota continued to lose and melt down in his future fights, never accomlishing anything of merit. If thats insulting to someone, sorry, thats just how I feel, and really what happened. I dont see how that shows any kind of bias towards a fighter? It may seem diminishing to Lewis win, but thats the way it was.
If a fighter loses to another fighter in the olympics, it doesnt mean they lose to them in the pros. There are many examples that are proof to that.
If a great fighter beats another great fighter after their best, that doesnt mean they can beat them at their best and the fight has to be evaluated in the proper context.
Of course it goes both ways but thats where the opinions start flying. It doesnt matte what the public or media perception was at that specific time. Holyfield was a walking dead man going into the Tyson fight.

Not to beat a dead horse, but when you read something like this, it makes you think about the reality of Golota even more.

Here are some unconfirmed (as yet) rumors that surfaced both before, during and after the fight:
1. Golota had disappeared 4 hours prior to the fight.
2. An hysterical Lou Duva had his brother Dino and the Atlantic City police out looking for his wayward heavyweight.
3. The 20 minute delay prior to the fight resulted from Golota's refusal to leave the dressing room.
4. The slap across the face delivered by Lou Duva wasn't the first that Golota received that night!
5. Golota suffered a post-fight seizure, during which he reportedly swallowed his tongue (literally impossible) and stopped breathing. Golota's medical problems have been "downgraded" to an anxiety attack - which makes much more sense. A good friend and knowledgeable boxing man, GorDoom, made an excellent point. He told me, "As a fighter, what Golota pulled was crap, but as a person, I feel bad for him. Can you imagine the pressure that he must have been under?"

 

Well, that's pretty much the same as what I was implying in my post that you responded to last time. In fact I said " ..... but I cant fault Lewis' performance" and I was making the comparison with Holyfield's KO of Douglas, which is rarely ever mentioned as a positive.
Talking about the Ruddock and Golota wins I went on to say "I'll give Lewis all the credit in the world for those performances, he wiped those guys away." ........ but all you came back with was some accusation about me downgrading Lewis's wins.

Well, using the normal standards of analysis in these debates, conclusions can be drawn over Lewis narrowly beating an out-of-shape Mercer too. But I'm not going to speculate.

There's definitely a case for stating that Lewis lost to Oliver McCall when McCall was in shape, and beat him when he was severely mentally unfit.

I'm not going to say it has any special relevance though.
It's not like Bowe was 265 pounds

Maybe he could have. Maybe not.

Holyfield lost a very close decision to a guy who had good boxing skills but a shaky chin.
Lewis got stopped in the 2nd round by a guy with mediocre skills but heavy hands.

Yes, okay, it's a judgment call. Personally, I think the 2nd round one-punch KO to the guy with lousy skills is a worse defeat.
Let's face it a 2nd round KO is almost always worse than a razor-thin decision loss !
I really dont rate McCall much at all. And that's not some underhand way of downgrading Lewis. I just dont rate McCall, and no one else did until he beat Lewis. ( ........ and McCall followed that up with his usual crappiness)

I dont discredit Lewis's win over Golota at all, I just view it in perspective. Golota wasn't a proven fighter at the top level at all, not to me. Sure, he was capable, he showed ability in the Bowe fights, he was no patsy. And therefore Lewis's 90 second demolition means something.

But how far should we go with this Golota thing ? He was coming off two losses for ridiculous DQs in big fights that he appeared to have sewn up. Like I said before, I'm almost lost for the words to explain it.
Moorer was a guy who got knocked down a few times and got up to win in a couple of fights prior to fighting Holyfield and sometimes looked lethargic, but it's hardly comparable. He was undefeated, not coming off two DQ losses.
Look, I'm even prepared to say Golota was a better heavyweight than Moorer in some ways, despite his apalling record in big fights.

The Lewis-beat-Tua-beat-Moorer-beat-Holyfield thing is taking things to extremes. Nevermind that the timeline is all over the place, but it doesn't actually say anything. It's simply adding confusion to rather easy historical facts.

The Golota win is great, a flawless destruction from Lewis. But there's no need to overplay Golota. We all know he was capable and dangerous, but he a damn load of question marks over him too.

How do you rate Lewis's win over Golota compared with Holyfield's over Douglas ?

If we include the years 2000 - 2003 we have to include losing to Hasim Rahman. Then you're really in trouble !
If Moorer gets all his performances up to 8 years after he beat Holyfield brought up, then we take everything Rahman's done since he beat Lewis too. It aint pretty.

That's rational. I cant argue with that. I dont necessarily agree, but it makes sense.
:good

 

A bit late to take the mature approach after making such comments as these.

Or

 

You could look at that all to mean:

1. Bowe just scored a career best win
2. Golota beat Bowe into retirement
3. Lennox destroyed and scared the **** out of the man who beat Bowe into retirement
4. Lennox was the most avoided/ducked HW of the 90s, the most feared man of the 90s and beat everyman he faced when they dared face him
5. Lennox didnt just beat the man who beat the man (Briggs), but the IBF/WBA Champ, the WBO Champ, the man who retired Bowe, the top 2 new contenders of the 90s (Tua/Golotta), he beat top3 fighters year on year, prime contenders, against all manner of styles never losing

 

Im not knocking your opinion if you see it that way. I just dont, considering past and future events of the fighters, (Bowe and Golota).

 

This is the better way to put it:good

On a sidenote, I will also ad that Michael Spinks was under far more pressure against Tyson and was noticeably intimidated, but he didn't have an anxiety attack.

 

Yeah you're right

 

Yes, that is the way it was.
And looking back at articles and magazine rankings from the period all confirm that.
Before Bowe fought Golota much talk was about Mike Tyson being number 1 anyway. With Tyson's destruction of Bruno he easily established himself as the best of the alphabet title holders and opinion on Bowe was divided. Some championed Bowe as the world's best heavyweight, but others were saying he wasn't in Tyson's league and some thought the third Bowe-Holyfield fight exposed both men as being ring-worn.
After Bowe fought Golota he dropped in everyone's estimation, and it wasn't like everyone was agreeing that Golota was the world's best heavyweight. They both sat around mid-way down the top 10. And you cant rate any fighter highly for getting DQ'd ! Tyson was number 1, almost unanimously.
Afterthe second Bowe-Golota fight it was clear that Bowe had deteriorated. Golota was "respected" for his ability, but by this time Holyfield-Tyson had happened.
Anyway, as far I was concerned, as thrilling as Golota-Bowe 2 was, I wasn't even sure they were the best two heavyweights on the bill that night !
I thought Mercer and Witherspoon looked better.

One American magazine reviewed Bowe's Olympic campaign as a pretty bad one, and ended up saying "as a pro he might make it as a sparring partner".
Yes, of course it's silly to think the amateur Olympics has any bearing on 4-5 years later in the pros.
Boxing history has more examples of the reverse if anything.

I think public perception matters when it is based on reality and results.
the perception that Holyfield was over the hill going in against Tyson was correct. The perception that Tyson was a devastating fighter still in 1996 was also correct. But the perception that Holyfield cant survive Tyson turned out to be wrong, and those things are just the unknowns of boxing.

But perceptions based on "personality", "name" and pure hype are just worthless. People buying into Tyson in 2002, Cooney in 1982, Muhammad Ali in 1980 ..... Tommy Morrison any time.
The great thing about the boxing press in the 1980s and 1990s is that there were always enough voices of reason cutting through the crap, and putting a damper on the hype - which should really only fool the casual fan.
And now, with the internet, there's a multitude of opinions. It's all good.