Lewis career/legacy - one of the best ever

Only the lennox-haters and Klit-huggers wanted the rematch. The sane world knew that a victory for Vitali would mean next to nothing, and a victory for Lennox would only tell us what we already knew. It was pointless.

 

I'm also starting to wonder, I know Lewis has a shaky chin, but didn't Tyson had a hard time with James Tillis? That guy was not that special but he was tall.


Imagine Lewis, tall and rangy, but also with good sense of distance and adequate boxing skills. (I think Lewis primed when he Golota onwards to beating Tyson.) I think he wouldn't give Tyson a chance to hit him.

 

Tony Tucker landed more punches than Tyson in their fight. With Lewis being superior to Tucker in every department but chin, you'd have to favour Lewis.

 

Exactly.

It would most probably have been a "boring" fight. It's likely that Lewis would have been slammed for being too defensive, as he usually was in these situations, but he would have won IMO.

 

Great post. Nice to see there are some around here who don't fall into the "groupthink" and overrate Lewis. Lewis is, at best, a borderline top ten guy. He is the ONLY top level HW champ who was blasted out in the early rounds by second-rate fighters - the ONLY one. That ALONE should raise questions about whether he belongs in the top ten. When you add that he didn't face ANY of the great fighters of his era when it mattered, it becomes even MORE clear - Lewis, at best, belongs in the very low reaches of the top ten, and certainly below the best HW of his era, Evander Holyfield.

 

You are a great poster mate.

However, saying that anybody that thinks Lewis has a "groupthink" mentality is a bit low. Holyfeild never did anything to rank above Lewis. The overriding impression that somebody would get from looking in at your views on fighters looking at their chins and looking at their loses and discounting the way that in this case Lewis came back and KO'd the guys that KO'd him.

 

Zakman is just a Holyfield fan.

There's no shame in that - I am as well.

But Zak is obsessed with the mother of all "un-measurable attributes" - chin. (How can you compare one with another when no two fighters faced the exact same punches in the exact same circumstances...?)

He tries desperately to find a reason to rank Holyfield as high as he can and clings to the myth that McCall & Rahman were only journeymen and that they were one-punch knockouts.

1) If they were journeymen then so were a lot of fighters that other "greats" lost to. Both were in the top-10 for the best part of a decade, and both held world titles for more defenses than Vitali Klitschko who is revered as a demi-God on this forum. :yep

2) They were "one punch" KO's in the sense that there was one final punch... but doesn't every KO fall into that category if that is your criteria? They weren't the first punches thrown & landed in the fight, so logically there were others before the KO that would have had an effect.

 

Same ref (Jupe Garcia) as Lewis had for Lewis-McCall I would give Holyfield two one-punch losses - Cooper and Bowe III (first KD).

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/lotierzo1608.php

Frank Lotierzo's article above is a great, objective look at Lewis and Holyfield. It gives credit to both fighters and acknowledges that it is a fairly close call and good arguments can be made for both fighters.

I think Lewis is an ATG heavy somewhere at the end of the top 10 or just outside it. I think Holyfield is an ATG heavy that rates somewhere between 6-10.

I rate Holyfield higher than Lewis for the following reasons -

1. Holyfield's wins over a prime Bowe in 93 and a past-prime but still formidable Tyson in 96 are significantly better than any win Lewis had in his career. The only Lewis win that is close is Lewis's win over a past-prime but still formidable Holyfield in 1999 in their first fight (9-3 win for Lewis - his jab was dominant and he was robbed in that first fight).

2. Lewis's 2 knockout losses by 1 punch to 2nd tier guys in McCall and Rahman. I think it is absolutely significant that Lewis is the only guy in the top 10-15 that has this distinction. No, I do not think Lewis has a glass chin. But I do think Lewis's chin is very average and could be gotten to. Where as Holyfield had an absolutely granite chin (one of the 5 best ever at heavyweight in my mind). So in mythical matchups prime for prime, I always wonder with Lewis how would he handle shots from a prime Foreman, Liston, etc.

3. A prime Holyfield (88-93) beats a prime Lewis (95-02). Why do I think this? Holyfield's WORKRATE is the reason. A prime Holyfield was a pretty high volume combination puncher that often threw over 40 punches a round. Holyfield was a spurt fighter from 94 on. Lewis was great. But the 2nd Lewis/Holyfield fight I think is more evidence that a prime Holyfield is likely to win. The 2nd Lewis/Holyfield fight is an extremely close fight. First 2 times I watched the fight I thought Lewis won (8-4 or 7-5). The last 2 times I scored it I thought Holyfield won (6-5-1 even). Ultimately, I actually think that fight probably was the definition of a draw. Neither guy was particularly dominant, and there were several close rounds (rounds 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 were all pretty close). But the key is this, Holyfield was a spurt fighter and not in his prime in 99. I happen to think that a prime Holyfield would outwork Lewis to close but clear UD (2 or 3 points). We know that it is very unlikely Lewis would knock Holyfield out (he had 24 rounds against a past prime Holyfield and couldn't do it). So I like Holyfield prime for prime.

Again, I encourage people to go back and watch their 2nd fight. I love HBO usually (Lampley, Merchant, and Foreman were a really entertaining team) - but there is no doubt that the sympathy was understandably with Lewis that night after he was robbed in the first fight. Lampley for instance talks about Lewis connecting on Holyfield pretty big in round 5 when in fact Lewis missed his punch, for instance.
Anyway if you watch their 2nd fight - break it down this way.

Holyfield clearly won rounds 6, 7, and 12.
Lewis clearly won rounds 2, 4, 10, and 11.
I think Holyfield won round 5 close but clear.
I think Lewis won round 9 because his last minute was maybe his strongest minute of the fight, and Holyfield's first 2 solid but not spectacular minutes were not enough to outweigh Lewis in round 9. Quality over quantity there.
So that makes 4 pretty clear rounds for Holyfield.
5 pretty clear rounds for Lewis.

That leaves rounds 1, 3, and 8 as the hardest rounds to score in my eyes.
In round 8, I happen to think Holyfield won the round by landing the cleaner punches, and being the effective aggressor but it was very close.

Rounds 1 and 3 are basically even rounds in my eyes.
Round 1 it appears Holyfield is pressing the fight, landing the more significant punches, but on the other hand Lewis does outland Holyfield in round 1. And more importantly, neither guy is particularly strong in round 1. So I score it even.
Round 3 I have scored for Holyfield the 2 times I had him winning by a point. But I think it very well might be the definition of an even round. Lewis doesn't do much, but he does throw more and do more than Holyfield for most of the round. Holyfield lands by far the best and only significant punch of the round, and whacks at Lewis as the round closes. So round 3 is another quality v. quantity debate. As I said, I've scored round 3 for Holyfield before but it can be justified as an even round.

Either way, you can see how one can end up with a 6-5-1 even scorecard for Holyfield. But again, looking at the fight in total. Lewis did outland Holyfield in terms of total punches. But Holyfield was the one pressing the fight and seemed to be the more effective agressor. Holyfield also suprisingly had the more effective jab, often times jabbing Lewis's chest. So it depends on what you look for as to who won.

As I said, their 2nd fight is so close that a draw is a more than reasonable outcome. So in a strange way if you could switch the scorecards from their
1st and 2nd fights you may have gotten it exactly right.

Remember Burt Sugar, Larry Holmes, Vitali Klitschko, Michael Moorer and several ringside observers thought Holyfield won the fight. So it is not crazy to say that Holyfield might have won a close fight.

But the fact that Holyfield did as well as he did in that 2nd fight, coupled with how much better he was in his prime (workrate much higher, and stamina better) is determinative for me as evidence that Holyfield beats Lewis prime for prime.

But a great argument can be made for either man. Again I highly suggest reading Frank Lotierzo's article linked above. It really is as sharp and objective an analysis I've seen in debating Holyfield and Lewis.

Good debate

 

Well Monte Cox, rates Lewis higher than Holyfield so there..lol

Certainly Holyfield rates higher p4p than Lewis, and has a better over all career taking into account his cruiserweight achievements, but I think Lewis is the better heayweight.

 

Awesome writeup, can anyone post a link to that fight?

 

My problem with this article is this. Assuming Lotierzo is correct on the second fight, which I don't believe is the case, but let's for a second assume it is. What about the first fight? Does it count? Did it take place? Why aren't the results and outcome of that fight incorporated into his analysis? Why only focus on 1/2 of the match ups that took place and virtually ignore the other half?

I don't mind someone picking Holyfield over Lewis, both are great, great fighters, but if you're using a h2h match up to support one view over the other, seems to me you have to incorporate both the fights, not just one. Otherwise it's it's a faulty analysis and comes across as biased.

 

Exactly.

Perhaps people should ask themselves who won the majority of the 24 rounds as a whole.

 

Perhaps with dodgy judges, the 1st fight was a misnomer. The 2nd fight was a more accurate discription of where the fighters were at that time (albiet, over the hill holy) for therapeutic analysis?