Lennox Lewis was the WBC Heavyweight Champion from 1992-94 and 1997-99 yet was considered during that period as a 2nd rater after his KO loss in 2rds to Oliver McCall and the Linear Title being held by Bowe, Holyfield, Foreman, Briggs, Tyson & Moorer... Lennox won the Undisputed title in 99 and was considered the Top Dog upto his retirement in 2004...What are your thoughts on Lennox Undisputed resume: 1999 Holyfield II 2000 Grant 2000 Botha 2000 Tua 2001 Rahman 2001 Rahman II 2002 Tyson 2003 Vitali Klitschko
Pretty good since half of those were rated #1 leading up to the Lewis fight and all but 1 were rated top 10 by The Ring. Please though, don't let your campaign of hate be disrupted by the truth. You also know there is a thread already for this subject, right?
Lewis gradually got stripped of all titles by refusing to face his mandatories (Ruiz, Byrd, Vitali) so that was a rather bleak reign.
My thought are this.. Jack Dempsey has a **** poor resume, the only man he fought that doesnt look like absolute and utter dog****, schooled him twice. He was a racist and scared to fight blacks. He ducked his number 1 contender for 7 years, as well as a featherfisted Middleweight.
correct yet Lewis fans like to ignore this very important point which i agree is a huge black mark on his career. Lewis chose to fight Frans Botha instead of John Ruiz (WBA) and Kirk Johnson instead of Chris Byrd (IBF).. IMO had Lewis fought and beat those No1 contenders he would come in for little flak other than promising the entire boxing world he would face Vitali in a return bout yet dragged out his career for another 9 months before announcing his retirement a couple of days before getting stripped of his last remaining belt.. Lewis abrogated his responsibilities as Heavyweight Champion to the fans of the sport by avoiding those No1 contenders.
Stop talking to your alt. First, Lewis wasn't stripped of his title for not fighting Vitaly. Second, why do you give a pass to Dempsey for ducking Wills and Greb, but you get a hard on about Lewis not facing a Ruiz who hadn't beaten a fighter of note in the top 10?
Lewis took on all comers and sought out the biggest challenges from 92 onwards, fighting top3 contenders year on year, and is 1 of the few men in history to beat every man he faced and beat the next dominant champ
The pattern of Lewis's reigns (with any belt) were that he would have no more than 3 or 4 successful defences before he fails to win. It happened with McCall, Rahman and Holyfield. Which means that theoretically, he was due to lose his World title in a couple of defences so he probably got out at the correct time. Realistically, Lennox' best defences were Tyson, who was considered a top fighter, despite probably not being, and Vitali, who wasnt considered better than about a top 5 fighter, but probably was. The others were all solid top 10 fighters, and maybe even top 5 fighters but realistically, i dont think that they were. This is no different situation to most other greats like Dempsey and others, but his level of opposition is greatly overated, due to the fact that there were sanctioning bodies with official lists of rankings. I dont think that their rankings actually reflect who the best fighters at the times actually were. Michael Grant was probably the number 1 contender after the holyfield fight. But history tells us that he was not better than Holyfield, even allowing for Holyfield's downfalls after the fight, and he was not better than Ruiz at this time, who proved his worth by taking Holyfield. He probably wasnt better than Byrd, who just beat Vitali. and in reality he probably wasnt better than Wlad or Vitali either. He certainly wasnt better than Tyson at this point in time, although admittedly Lennox later went on to face Tyson. He probably wasnt better than Oliver McCall, who had already gone 1-1 against Lewis and had a decent KO streak, admittedly against poor opposition. It is highly doubtful that he was better than Hasim Rahman, who went on to knock out Lennox Lewis. In fact, he is only good win (which was admittedly reasonable for the time) was against Andrew Golota, who did well against an undertrained bowe, but wasnt in the same class against real greats he faced like Lewis and Tyson. In fact, i would say that is arguable that there is at least anotehr 10 fighters around at the time, who were actually better fighters than Michael Grant. So, despite facing a "number 1" contender if he is being judged by the same criteria as those who judge Dempsey's reign so poor, then Lennox' reign has the exact same problems except that unlike Dempsey, he lost in the middle of it. There is a big difference particularly nowadays, between a number one contender and the best challenger available.
During his entire 7 year reign(fought only 6 times), Dempsey flat out openly ducked his no.1 contender for 7 years straight. He ducked an entire race of people. He also ducked a half blind feather fisted middleweight for this glorious 7 year reign.
So, resume is about the fighters one didn´t fight then. Interesting, I thought it is about who that fighter actually fought. I have to re-think everything. Thanks for that enlightment, my dear little friend. :thumbsup
Lewis's reign (interrupted by getting sparked out by Rahman) 1999 - '03 is not particularly good. It's quite poor really. Since Pachiles has brought his Dempsey-hate troll act to this thread (much to the delight of JAB and McG, no doubt) ...... I rate's Dempsey's reign only a C+. But Lewis's split reign would get maybe a C- on the same scale. Of course, to some people, getting KO'd by Rahman is all fine and dandy. Everyone should get sparked out "unmotivated and out of shape" smack bang in the middle of their championship years, it means a win in the rematch will be valued more than if you beat the guy first time around.