Yeah, no way Phil Jackson was ranked at top-10. He probably wasn't even amongst top-30 best HWs when he fought Lewis - division was full of very talented fighters then. Old Thompson's wins over David Price and Solis easily trumps everything prime Jackson did - he beat a buch of bums and few juorneymen.
Yes, Witherspoon had very good jab and Lewis always struggled badly against good jabbers. Plus his overhand right was just brutal - clearly better than Rahman's and McCall's ones. Old Witherspoon hurt Mercer more than Lennox ever did in their fight.
1993 Title Vacant Evander Holyfield Riddick Bowe Lennox Lewis Michael Moorer Michael Bentt Oliver McCall Ray Mercer Phil Jackson Tommy Morrison Mike Hunter These are the end of year rankings for 1993 .Since Jackson fought Lewis in March 1994 and had no fights between why would they change? ps Lewis fought 5 of that top ten and another.[ Bowe ,]wouldn't fight him.
So Morrison wasnt a puncher? That is your stance? Which ko wins does Shavers have over a legit current contender? The bluff and fluff isn't coming from the Lewis side!
At least the Ring ratings reflected the reality and feel of that time. It's easy to look back with hindsight and throw in a bit of historical revision. Sure they got some wrong (how could anyone not?) but they were far better than the other clowns. Ignoring them just gives some a poetic license to distort in favor of their own particular bias.
True. This rankings were based on Jackson's good record 30-1, but there were no wins vs any top-50 HW on his resume. Only ranked opponent he has fought before Lennox was Ruddock who made quick and brutal work of Phil.
In fact it was ridiculous ranking from The Ring - Ruddok KOed Jackson in 4 rounds and Phil didn't beat any top-30 fighters since then. He definitely didn't desrve to be ranked so high. For what? For winning 10-rounds unanimous decision against low-level journeyman Eddie Gonzalez who was KO'ed in the first round by Samson Pou'ha in his previous fight?
No doubt. Phil Jackson was the epitome of a fighter with a padded record. On paper his record looked good. But, he never beat ANY quality fighters. Once Jackson stepped up the competition, his record fell off a cliff. Regrettably, this model of building a good record, rather than creating a good fighter through increasingly better opposition is now the rule rather than the exception.
I'm talking about where he was ranked not whether others think he deserved to be.I proved he was ranked where I said he was that's all I set out to do.
I Pure conjecture. I said he and Briggs were ranked and proved they were.Should we go by the Ring ratings or those "off the top of your head?"
The fact that I missed mentioning one of the dozen or so top notch victims of Lennox off the top of my head just goes further to prove how damn deep his resume is. That's right, he had so many quality victories it is difficult to remember them all. Thanks to all who pointed that out for serving to reinforce my argument.
I agree with this mostly because the 1990's and the early 2000's were a loaded time of talent, but upon closer examination Lewis waited for the best time for him to fight Holyfield and Tyson. He benefited greatly from re-matching those who beat him, and didn't offer any re-matches vs. those who gave him tough fights. How many top ten ring magazine opponents did Lewis beat? I'd guess over 12, though I never counted.
Thank you for seeing the light on this one... but why would you castigate Lewis for rematching AND KO'ING the two guys who defeated him? I thought that is how legends were born. Or is this measuring stick, like so many others, different for Mr. Lewis? Someday, a true Limey will have to explain to me the animosity held against Lewis and how it distorts all measure of credible intellect. Is it the Canada/Jamaica thing? Is it destroying Bruno? Anyways, I am all ears.