LEWIS /FOREMAN, Different perceptions of 2 defeats whilst at their peak.

The Lion generally gets a hard time everywhere except when he loses, when he loses those were the best versions of him and he lost because of his chin, or because he wasn't as good as people think he is, or whatever... There's always some sort of slight against him.
Lewis was green against McCall and got cocky against Rahman, but those are both considered him at his best.

 

Ali and Jimmy Young are better fighters than McCall and Rahman and Foreman was the most feared HW champ ever going through mental health challenges. Lennox Lewis was not considered the real champ when he lost to McCall that would be.....George Foreman.

Most people disagree with me that Alis win over Foreman is a fluke but the fact we're even having the discussion if the consensus HW GOAT beating someone is a fluke is a fundamentally different discussion than doubting someones ability to avenge a loss to Oliver McCall or Hashim Rahman.


Also Lennox is very respected today. Just not as much as Foreman. Foremans performances against Moorer and Holyfield lead one to the conclusion that Foreman at his peak would obliterate the 90s stars. Lennox proving he is the best 90s HW does nothing to suggest he'd have a chance against prime Foreman.

Foremans resume has a lot of fluff but he has a better top 5 wins than any other HW ever(Frazierx2, Norton, Lyle,Moorer). Hes a little light on the stuff in between but Foreman has 14 wins over HW title contenders not counting Briggs and 5 over LHW contenders. 5 title defenses. Its not the best SOS but its enough where no ones bringing up his lack of big wins.

 

Maybe b/c 1 of those 2 losses by Foreman was vs. the arguable GOAT HW?

 

Because Muhammad Ali is considered the GOAT Heavyweight so losing to Muhammad Ali compared to getting 1 shotted by the likes of Rahman, McCall, is obviously considerably worse.

And whilst Young never actually won a title i do actually consider him a better fighter than Rahman, McCall, and i would favour Young over both fighters.

Just to add i do think Foreman has been criticized quite a bit for the Young loss, and alot of people use that fight as a reference that Foreman would lose to certain boxers.

Also i would still rate Lewis above Foreman BTW.

But overall i think Lewis and Foreman are both highly respected now and rightly so, but Lewis getting 1 shotted twice by two fighters who are solid but nothing special will always be a bit of mark against him.

 

The only prime losses these two suffered were to Ali & Rahman.

 

I'm not so sure. Ali's top 5 wins (Liston x 2, Frazier x 2, Foreman, Norton) are the better 5 wins (although I listed 6, so throw out the least valuable win).

A different perception of Lewis' 2 and Foreman's 2 defeats can be that those 2 are Lewis' only defeats (and Foreman has 5 of them).

But the main reason why the perception is different is - double standards!

Critics are much lighter on Foreman's loss to Young (who was a challenger, but not against Foreman, but Ali), and much harsher on Lewis' losses to Rahman and McCall who were also challengers but in a fight with Lewis (ok, these are losses by knockout, but a defeat is a defeat).

 

Gassing against two cuties makes you look bad.
Getting OPKO'd by the likes of McCall and Rahman makes you look real bad.

 

Conversely though, people praise Lewis’ vengeance against Rahman - a totally bog average fighter - as though it were incredibly meaningful, when in reality, Lewis should have mopped the floor with him first time out, & would have received a lot less credit for having done so.

 

It's not double standards at all.

3 of Foreman's losses were in his 40's. Against a prime Holyfield who is a legend, against big hitting Morrison who ran like a startled hare for 12 rounds and against probably the best version of Shannon Briggs when he was nearly 49 years old, a fight that most had Foreman winning.

Foreman never lost a fight to a guy as limited as Rahmann.

 

I will try not to get into a long discussion like yesterday.
I'm even considering the possibility that you're misinterpreting me on purpose or by accident (and I'll keep that possibility as a possibility).

The story of double standards only starts when I mentioned double standards.

Foreman lost to Morrison who is very, very limited with his chin.
And those are double standards.

But we compare here "Ali + Young Vs. McCall + Rahman"

 

Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

When Lewis lost to McCall big George was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison. How on earth was Foreman considered the real champ when he'd just been comprehensively outpointed by Morrison?

As a matter of fact i'm pretty sure George was not even in the top 10 at that time.

 

You’re being obtuse and I think you are doing so deliberately.

How old was Foreman when he lost to Morrison?

How many total fights did Lewis have? How many did Foreman have?

You are cherrypicking outcomes to suit your argument and blatantly ignoring salient points that don’t.

 

That is true. At the time of Lewis - McCall fight Michael Moorer was Lineal HW champ and held two belts

 

I was off by 2 months. McCall beat Lewis in September Foreman beat Moorer in November.

So the real champ was....Michael Moorer who Foreman was about to beat. Foreman was still the lineal champ when Lennox regained his belt too.