Max Kellerman on Lennox Lewis

I dont completely agree, but Lewis is 1 of the biggest punchers ever and seriously underrated, maybe even up there with Shavers.

Prime Tysons speed and skill gives Lewis problems

 

Kellerman is not a bad guy. He just often takes one or two tangents, then build an entire reply based on those tangents.

I do think Lewis beats Tyson 7 out of 10 times.

Size and weight give you advantages, but so does skill. When you have a size, weight, and skill edge then you are tough to beat.

 

I found myself having a hard time trying to agree with very much of what he was saying.. For one thing, I can't see Tyson in his prime as being a mismatch for Lewis, when afterall he lasted 8 rounds and stunned him a few times when he was beyond shot. He also credits Lewis has having beaten better opposition, when frankly I don't think there much difference between the two men's list, and in fact, shared some of the same opponents.. Its possible that Lewis hit harder than Shavers, but its not a forgone conclusion. While I am the first to give merit to the size argument, anytime you have two guys who are over 200 lbs, its pretty fair game, and that does not even beging to factor in styles.. It's also interesting how he never mentioned the McCall and Rahman losses.

 

Lewis was knocked out by two far inferior fighters to Tyson who didnt use their size or reach to knock him out. I believe there is some merit to the size arguement, but not in the case of 225-250 pounds.

 

Agreed,

When I refer to one fighter as having a great size avantage over another, I am generally referring to a 220 lb guy over a man who is 190 or something... But when comparing a 220 guy to one who is 250, the same 30 lbs differential does not have as much of a bearing..

 

kellerman is an idiot. and not only that, a 6'1" mercer gave lewis hell.

 

and when you have a fighter as talented as a young tyson, 25-30lbs is not something that is impossible for him to overcome considering the man usually was smaller then his opponents anyway.

 

Indeed,

And I find it interesting how Lewis despite his collosal size advantage, was taken a combined 24 rounds by a 37 year old Holyfield who stood 6'2" and weighed 215 lbs...

 

Absolutely,

Tyson made a career out facing and beating guys who's height and weights ranged anywhere from 6'3" - 6'5", and 215-240. Granted, Lewis was a better fighter than Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, Green, etc., but I don't think that size alone is the main factor...

 

Kellerman knows a lot of boxing outcomes and history but little insight to the technical side of the sport and thats why him and Emanuel Steward are often describing two completely different events playing out in a fight. I dont know where he fits in as a commentator, his historical knowledge is a little deeper than Lampley and Merchants, but his commentary cant hold their jockstraps.

 

the first fight, lewis dominated and was robbed, second fight however was dissapointing and raises the question, could a prime holyfield beat lewis. the thought is certainly conceivable

 

exactly, it matters but there are other aspects to consider

 

I would definitely be inclined to putting my money on the Holyfield who rocked the division from 1989-1992. There are some here who try and justify Lewis as struggling with an aged Holyfield by saying things like " Holy improved his skill set" or " had better stamina at 37 than he did at 29. " Frankly, I think its all bull****....

 

And the combined score on that should have been about 17-7 in favour of Lewis, give or take a few rounds. 9-3 in the first fight and 8-4 in the second, 7-5 in the second if you're being generous. I don't get this idea of focusing on only the outcome of one fight when trying to make a point. They fought twice. The first wasn't close and the second one was closer than the first, but still a clear Lewis win, but most people.