Most overrated HW of all time.

They weren't any different.

Tyson, Norton, Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Foreman, Holyfield etc also lost to so called B-level fighters, but you will never read the words B-level fighter and their names in one sentence for some reason.

 

:good

 

This is a verry valid observation.

 

Good point. :good

 

A superb point. It amuses how the likes of Zakman (nothing personal, but when it comes to Lewis the man loses all perception like Rooster and SRL) twist around the criteria to fit there exact agenda, and it is indeed an agenda. They add the title of "champion" so they can bypass the likes of those you mention, as well as many many others. It's not hard to tear down most anyone with an attitude like this.

 

Moorer and Douglas, for instance, are little better than either McCall or Rahman. Contenders all.

 

Exactly!!!! Not by much! As a matter of fact i don't rate Moorer that much at all at Heavyweight. His main claim to fame is a close win over an inconsistent Holyfield. Besides beating hapless coppers. Douglas did very little apart from his one night stand too. Potential and prettiness doesn't mean everything.

 

While I think you make a good overall point, I believe there is one significant difference between Lewis' situation and that of the other fighters you mention.

Lewis' "B-level" loss to Hasim Rachman was for the heavyweight championship of the world, and Lewis was KO'd decisively. I'm not sure you can really compare such a humiliating loss to those incurred by other great fighters early or late in their careers.

 

the telling factor is that Lewis came back tiptop and absolutely KTFO Rahman. This makes excuses for the loss very very believable. It also proves his worth under possibly the most excruciating situation known to boxer, the ability to come back and beat a guy that has knocked you out. This proves the true mettle of Lewis. Incidently he did it twice, irregardless of Mad McCall's state.

How many didn't do this?

Ali
Tyson
Holmes


hell, i need not even bother to go on.

 

Yup. What's the maxim, KO someone once and you'll KO them quicker in the rematch? Lewis disproved that usually reliable truism not once, but twice. What does that tell you about the first fights? It tells me at least that Lewis was operating below the level that he was capable of performing at. He should never have lost the fights but he did. These are some of the things that Lewis-haters try to highlight regarding lewis, simply because they can't find anything else.

1. The man goes 14 years and only hits the deck twice and he gets accused of having a glass jaw.
2. He loses to 2 fighters that happened not to be in the top 20 HWs of all time so they are labelled as 'B level journeymen'.
3. He is charged with not fighting the best fighters of his era in their primes. Nevermind that this is almost entirely because said fighters either ducked him or paid him step-aside money.

No other top HW has had to undergo this level of scrutiny or unfairness when their careers are being dissected. Give the guy a ****ing break I say.

 

Agreed

Sustained beatings can really age a fighter, but one punch knockouts do more damage to a fighters confidence. Knowing that your in with an opponent who had knocked you out in a previous fight, yet coming back to dominate them so convincingly takes bottle and courage. The thing I liked about Lewis during his rematches with McCall and Rahman, he oozed confidence and focused more on his own work than his opponents. He never went into his shell.

 

Posts like this by you and Chris is why i left the Lennox Lewis defending to you guys. What a superb post, short but concise and impeccable in it's finality. Keep up the fantastic work you two.

 

Zakman's argument about Lennox Lewis is sound.

Which other GREAT heavyweight champion was STARCHED twice by SINGLE PUNCHES thrown by B-level fighters ?

That is Zakman's question. Is Zakman operating with an irrational anti-Lewis agenda ? I dont think so. I think Zakman is willing to disqualify any historical heavyweight from the ranks of the "true greats" if they have been found to have been starched TWICE by one-punch against B-level fighters, (while they were champion, in their prime, or at their peak).

 

With all due respect Sonny you are as hard on Tyson as Zakman is on Lewis. As we've been thru recently. Incidently you are both immense Holyfield fans.

IMO Zakman is grossly unfair to Lewis, as are you to Tyson. Uncannily i agree with most every post both of you make when it comes to topics other than Lewis and Tyson.

 

I think I'm fair to Tyson.
As an immense Holyfield fan who makes no excuses for his losses to Bowe and Moorer, I dont feel my acknowledgment of Douglas KO10 Tyson is out of line.
I understand that my fairness in this matter is a minority view.

I think Zakman had a sound case against Lewis but I dont necessarily agree with the extent of the conclusions he draws. I think he's sincere and consistent with his criteria for "greatness" but I dont share those criteria, although I find it a partially persuasive argument.