Lennox never seemed to be rated so highly in real time DURING his career.

No, he didn’t.

He didn’t beat Holyfield. He lost to him twice.

He didn’t defeat Lennox Lewis. He, in fact, gave up a belt rather than fight him and lost when he fought him years later.

He didn’t beat Riddick Bowe. Didn’t even fight him.

He didn’t even beat Buster Freaking Douglas, who obviously was a strong enough ‘rival’ to beat him because he did, and emphatically so.

He didn’t beat George Foreman, or Tim Witherspoon or Ray Mercer or even Michael Dokes (ranked No. 3 by The Ring in 1989 annual rankings).

And please cite your source that anyone of note thought Tyrell Biggs was one of two guys who could possibly beat Mike Tyson? I don’t remember ANYONE saying they thought Biggs would win (unless it was his manager, trainer or promoter, lol).

TL/DR: You’re literally just making stuff up.

 

Very detailed and accurate post.

To put it a certain way:

As a fighter in the 90s...uh, Mike was really great in the 80s.

 

I was a small child during Lennox's prime and not yet into boxing. But i can see why people didn't rate him.

Moving from Canada to Britain and adopting a fake English accent wasn't going to endear him to either Brits or Canadians. Or Americans for that matter.

His early performances were vs relative unknowns until he beat Ruddock. That was a very impressive win (his first great one) but it also came against an opponent who had already lost twice.

Beating past it Tucker and Bruno (the latter of whom had a history of losing when he stepped up) didn't exactly win him big praises. Remember he was being outboxed by Bruno before he closed his eyes and landed a big left.

Then he lost to a limited fighter in McCall.

Then he defeats a fading Morrison (not the best version) in an impressive performance. This was arguably only his third quality performance vs a world class opponent - and remember all of these guys (Ruddock, Bruno, Morrison) had lost when they stepped up.

He won a close hard fought contest vs Mercer. This was indeed impressive but i can see why folks would not be overly impressed given how Holmes had dealt with Mercer earlier. And some people would have wondered why there was no rematch.

He avenged his loss to McCall but the circumstances were so bizzare that one wondered if he can even be credited for that.

Then he defeats a hard hitting but limited Briggs who had been gifted a decision vs an ancient Foreman. And then Lewis had a convincing but awkward encounter with Marovic who wasn't exactly a world beater.

In between he had an amazing ko win over a dangerous headcase in Golota.

So by 1999, Lewis had a total of 6 quality wins vs world class fighters. (Ruddock, Bruno, Morrison, Mercer, Briggs, and Golota). All of these guys except Mercer had a habit of losing whenever they stepped up in competition.

IMO Lewis's legacy really improved from 1999-2003. He beat Holyfield both times. Yes, this was an old Holyfield. But it was arguably the first time he showed he could outbox a world class heavyweight over the course of 12 rounds. He showed a wider skillset here than he ever had before.

His best win IMO came against Tua. Tua had never lose except once to another world class fighter. He did not have a history of losing when stepping up. And Lewis dominated him.

Then he ko'd an unbeaten Grant. Yes, he was overhyped. But still....

I can see why people didn't appreciate him back then. He could be overly cautious at times, he didn't have the natural speed of Ali or Tyson which excited crowds. He was unlucky that Bowe refused to fight him.

Its only with hindsight that we can see that he was a great heavyweight. He had very few great ones (arguably just two) but he had lots of good wins. Lots of good wins are arguably just as impressive as 4-5 great wins. He also benefited from the fact that Wlad was a 10 times more clinchy and boring champion. So people became nostalgic about Lewis.

I think Lewis would have benefited heavily if he had a chance to take on and beat either Bowe or Holyfield in the early 1990's. Not his fault it didn't materalize.

He also would have benefited a lot from beating someone like Witherspoon in the early 90's or Ibeabuchi in 1999-2000. Again not his fault with the later.

If he had wins over Bowe, Ibeabuchi, and say someone like Sanders, i would rank him top 3.

 

I’m not sure Ruddock meets the standard of ‘elite.’

He was big and strong. Durable. But he had a draw with a guy who couldn’t even generously be called a journeyman early in his career and got stopped when he quit on his stool vs. Dave Jaco. Not the most auspicious beginning to an ‘elite’ career.

His best wins were pretty much 1980s (and even late ‘70s) retreads: Mike Weaver, Greg Page and a still-useful Michael Dokes, but Dynamite had already been softened up by Holyfield iirc and was ripe for someone to pick him off.

 

The thing about Ruddock is that he came in at a very unfortunate time, he rose up through the ranks due to his boxing ability, only to start relying heavily on the power of his left, basically throwing out everything he had, his technique, his jab, even his right was barely used, and he just wasn't able to correct himself in time for the big leagues.
You can see him struggle against those old titlists because of that, Greg Page won a decent bit of rounds, Dokes won every round up to the KO, Smith was able to put him on the canvas, and he was barely able to do anything against Tyson other than pop a couple uppercuts in whenever he went down.
He had a lot of ability and promise, hell, he had Floyd Patterson in his corner, but he just was never able to put it all together.
Also, the Jaco loss was due to an asthma attack I believe.

 

I did a quick check on the Jaco loss and the list of excuses is:

1) He had an asthma attack between rounds and the commission stopped it (Donovan excuse No. 1)

2) He quit (I think his own corner may have said this?)

3) He was sick with a cold the day before the fight and should have pulled out but thought it was going to be a quick KO and he gassed and couldn’t or wouldn’t continue (his brother’s version)

4) His tonsils were too big and he couldn’t get enough oxygen, and he had them removed sometime after this fight (Donovan excuse No. 2)

I’d say when there are four excuses, two by the fighter himself, and none of them are in agreement … they’re just that — excuses.

 

I hear you. It truly is a shame when a fighter can't just accept a loss. Though, Ruddock seemed to constantly do that, it seems, as he also complained about Tyson throwing low blows in their first match.
I guess that makes him the second coolest heavyweight with asthma, lol. "LET'S GO CHAMP!"

 

& some of you guys criticising him for flopping between English & Canadian haven’t even mentioned his occasional Jamaican identity, replete with rasta ring entrance music & dreads!

Each Lennox Lewis sold separately.

 

Didn't know that, thanks. It's a little bit of a different story now.

 

They are the biggest casuals in the boxing world. I think only Pacquaio and Wilder fans are worse.

 

Angelo Dundee predicted. "If he reverts to his style as an amateur, you're going to have a 15-round fight, and Tyson will get outpointed." HBO commentator Larry Merchant called Biggs "the only man on this planet capable of beating Tyson." Boxrec

If you accuse someone of lying - check first!! I really don't want to enter a professional forum and prove to every uninformed hater that something happened. It does not make sense. Douglas interrupted Tyson's domination in his 11th belt fight and 6 third defenses. ALL THE MOST IMPORTANT!! Find one HW boxer - just ONE - who has more defenses of the three most important WBC WBA IBF belts. In the 1980s, Tyson did not give any of these belts to anyone, did not sell them to anyone, did not refuse to fight to anyone and fulfilled all federation obligations. He didn't do like Foreman with Tucker, Bowe with Lewis, Lewis with Ruiz and Byrd...
Find me that one guy from the times of three belts, for almost half a century, who has unified the 3 most important titles in HW and defended it more than 5 times - only one in 50 years.

 

Tyson haters are also funny - their main counter-argument is that you are a boyfan Mike and nothing else matters and facts don't matter. The more arguments you give, the more often you hear - you are a fanboy. You, Mac, made me laugh when you wrote that Lewis dominated and Tyson, without arguing, among other things, that Tyson defended the title against someone as bad as Frank Bruno. Well, it wasn't a bad argument and Tyson looked the worst against Bruno but he still won easily and a few years later, in a much more competitive fight against the older and more broken, rusty Bruno, Lennox Lewis defended the title and looked much worse against him than the worst Tyson. But it's not a problem for you there were also funny examples of Holyfield chasing Tyson in the audience before the fights but going to court with the federation which told him not to fight him Tyson haters are funny but their best argument is still - you don't have that's right and that's it, you're a Tyson fanboy

 

I'm not a Tyson hater, I'm actually a fan. But there is a difference between a fan and a fanboy. And you sir, are the latter. You can laugh all you want, but you're a laughing stock of this thread. You can't even understand a single point people are making.