Lennox Lewis - Whats The Lowest He Can Be Ranked?

That's all true.

He lost to Oliver McCall.
And it's impossible to prove who was the "most avoided/ducked HW of the 90s, and the most feared".
It's not really a title I recognize though.

I dont think he beat many top 3 fighters. Certainly, not year on year.

In 1990 he didn't.
In 1991 he didn't either.
In 1992, yes, Ruddock was arguably in the top 3.
1993, nope
1994, nope
1995, nope
1996, nope
1997, nope (although I just know you wanna say GOLOTA)
1998, nope
1999, YES ! He beat Holyfield.

 

I think Tyson and King did a number on everyone. It was very telling to watch Tysons interview with John Madden before the Mathis fight. He was watching tapes of his older fights saying he could never beat that guy now. Then he proceeded to miss and look like a technical mess against Mathis.
The destruction of Bruno erased what was really reality with Tyson in the minds of fight fans.
It could have possibly been a number of fighters that night, but Holyfield got the call to be the sacrificial lamb.

 

Photo shopping another poster's pics, then doctoring them with something offensive... Hmmmm, I wonder if this a banable offense... Perhaps I've discovered the way to get rid of you once and for all....

 

Mathis had an awkward style, I doubt any version of Tyson would have found him any easy target. He was a completely different style of fighter to what Tyson was used to.

But really, that's not much different to Tyson first time around. He basically made his reputation as a destroyer of guys who were world-class but weren't amazing or great.
He was always beatable.

Who from 1996 would beat that Tyson ?

 

I dont know what your talking about.

 

To me Mathis was a poor mans Tony Tubbs. Both slick guys, although Mathis didnt have near the skills or power of Tubbs and Tyson figured him out fairly quickly.
As far as Bruno he was a bit stiffer and bigger, but really a fighter who was perfect for Tyson at that time. Never good at facing hard punching guys. Tyson didnt need to be technically perfect to beat him.
I think any fighter on the caliber of Ray Mercer, good chin, solid boxing skills would have given Tyson hell in 96

 

Ha, ha, ha. Just don't seem to able to get out of this one, do I?

Lewis has more wins than anyone else over the 90's contenders. A good deal of these wins were also absolutely dominating. He only lost to one these contenders and avenged that loss. He is, in most people's eyes, 2-0 against the second best HW of the decade.

He was closer to his prime than Holyfield when they fought, but it's not like these fights means nothing. Holyfield was still a good, dedicated fighter, as he had proven shortly before and would go on to prove much later.

For me, this makes it pretty easy to single Lewis out as the best of the decade.

 

1. We can at least agree on 1 thing

2. Lets see '93 - ducked by Bowe, 94-95 ducked/avoided by Holyfield/Moorer, 96 Tyson 96-98-ducked by Holyfield, I cant see who else is more ducked can you?

3. Lets see
'91 - Mason (top5)
'92 - Rudduck (rated above Lennox/Bowe at the time before their respective wins and some rated him over Holyfield at the time)
'93 - Bruno was top4 behind Lennox/Bowe/Holyfield
'94 - poor year
'95 - Morrison top6 with a win over the current linear HW Champ, Rudduck and on a good winning run being 45-2-1
'96 - Mercer probably top6 at this time giving Holyfield fight
'97 - Golota - yes top3, many considered him the no1 HW rightly or wrongly, he retired Bowe 'winning the events' who had beat Holyfield who had beat Tyson who was banned. So realistically you could only rate Lennox/Holy over Golota as Bowe/Tyson were no longer in the sport
Akiwande - underrated contender Henry, certainly top 10 worthy, pity it went so badly
McCall - top10 but obviously in a bad mental state
'98 - Briggs - Linear Champion and possibly seen as the next big champion?
'99 - Holy x2
'00 - Tua - arguably unbeaten knocking out everyone in his path, had to be top 3 at the time
Grant - at the time seen as the heir apparent, beat Golota, seen as no2 to Lennox
01 - Rahman - had to be top3 with his win over Lennox
02 - Tyson - yes Tyson was way past prime, but he was still top3, he'd just beat Golota in 2 rounds which was a better win than either Klit brothers had managed and was on a good winning run
03 - Vitali - the heir apparent and next great champion at nearly 38.

So top contenders year in year, not always top3 but I count 9 fights with men ranked in the top 3, which is some acomplishment in itself

 

:huh Lefthooks a good poster I enjoy his posts even if they are biased to high heaven and wont see sense, at least he admits it

 

Thanks I guess. Please tell me how Im biased and you are not. Please tell me who I am biased towards? Id like to know seriously. You are obviously a big fan of Lennox Lewis and only looking at the positives of Lennox Lewis overlooking or disputing anything that could negatively impact his status, just like you do with Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather.
I simply play devils advocate to people like you. Difference is you dont take it personal, most of the time.

Another thing I find quite amusing is its only when it involves Lennox Lewis. Any other fighter, never had a problem with anyone, except Magoo of course.

 

This was my take on the whole discussion and I believe a fairly unbiased opinion.
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

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and on occasion, even a biased one at that. But, when an agenda reaches the point of intentionally misquoting people, ignoring direct responses, using falsehoods, and constantly repeating debunked points, it gets rather obnoxious. The general rule about having a right to an opinion, is that it still has to be informed to some degree. You can't just spew whatever crap that just pops into your head, and expect to be taken seriously while maintaining the right to chew people's heads off when you're not.

 

Have you not admitted bias in this thread, I could search for it if I wanted to. My main problem is you don't answer whole posts, ignoring the points that dont suit your agenda, your view is pretty much steadfast.

As for me being biased, I didnt even used to be a Lennox fan, wanted Tyson to beat him, wasnt a big fan when he was champion. Still a bigger fan of Tyson than Lennox. I may have been a bit biased with Jones/Mayweather, with Jones its justifiable hes superman, Mayweather is ticking me off at the moment though, cant believe I paid 49.99 for that borefest :twisted: He better fight someone good next :-(

 

Maybe someone like you doesnt understand points, because you have no idea what your looking at.
False hoods? Chewing peoples head off? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Our latest arguement was about Shannon Briggs. His level of ability overall, of which you jumped all over me for saying he was somewhat comparable to Alex Stewart on a skill level. No way, he was the linear champ, he was this, did that.
The kind of statements you were making were so far off base, I posted I didnt agree with you. You dont like that, so you make it personal. Several threads were put up, and I think the consensus view is that they were somewhat similar both in style and skill level. You being afraid to admit your wrong or dont see the differences, is what bothers me.
And no, this, like its always been is about people feeling they have to defend Lennox Lewis. How dare his accomplishments be questioned in any way?
I always explain my point of view quite thoroughly, maybe thats part of the reason the discussions Im involved in about Lewis take up 20 pages. Not everyone agrees with me and Im fine with that, but thats something you cant handle. Most people like you, who cant back anything up, resort to name calling or calling someone biased, because they disagree.

 

Yes I would like you to point it out. I may have forgotten a couple fighters in one of my descriptions, but I added them and explained myself very clearly, of which you answered on two occasions, one involving Bruno and the other Vitali, to statements that were never made in my post, therefore you werent reading what I was writing.
As far as Mayweather, I could have told you to wait for the replay, that fight had no chance of being good. If Mayweather wants to continue to make the paydays he expects, he will soon, like Mike Tyson found out in the early part of 2000, that the fans are not going to pay for anything other than a real fight. Let's just hope his heart is still in boxing, and hes not just looking for paydays. The Pac Cotto winner certainly makes the biggest fight in boxing.