Muhammad Ali Vs. Lennox Lewis

Interesting view on Holmes' chances. I can't agree that Holmes would give more trouble than Frazier but do agree that he had some good assets that may trouble Ali -more than Norton would have in Ali's prime in my opinion.

 

Stonehands. Lewis was a top technician on the outside. I don't see how anyone with a considerable amount of boxing knowledge would say otherwise. He was a straight puncher, had a solid left hook, could punch well in combinations, and his balance improved remarkably well under Steward. His jab was a serious weapon when at it's best, although he tended to paw with it from time to time. He had a wide variety of punches, and he punched well from underneath. He wasn't exactly what I'd call a sloppy fighter, technically, who was particularly wild and wide with his punches. Being controlled was a big part of Lewis' make-up as a fighter.

He was versatile in terms of being aggressive or non aggressive. I would't call him versatile in terms of his ability to fight inside and outside. Because he was tall and rangey, physically strong, and had power, being on the outside was where he done his best and most consistent work.

Lewis could easily play the role of the aggressor. Yes, his reach and height helped, also his power. But his technical skills were also part of the reason why he was so successful. And those technical skills were part of the reason he could stand off (box) and dominate opponents.

 

"Lennox could be aggressive or non-aggressive." That's versatility? He can punch well and hard. That's a technician? I'm not sure about your standards here Robbi. I watch his fights and see basic skills. Not much more than that. I've seen more technical skill in sparring by 2nd year middleweights in Brockton than I've seen in most of Lewis's fights. Especially his last one, which was a woeful display of technical skill.

[YT]XqWX-rRhLRY&feature=related[/YT]
The fight begins at 2:10. Note Lampley's comment: "They look like John L. Sullivan and James J. Corbett".... Yep. They do.

Compare that to this:

[YT]2ococUN_w9Q[/YT]
Those are technicians. Vitali and Lennox look comparatively like mummies. Marquez -Barrera is intense and violent, but there is virtually no sloppiness. Vitali fights no differently than HWs did in 1910. Marquez and Barrera do little clinching, make few technical mistakes, what there is a wide array of shots and boxing at every distance. And don't even get me started on the chasm between defensive skill in the two fights.

 

Obviously a fighter who constantly comes forward isn't versatile in terms of how he's fighting, generally speaking. I'd hardly call Frazier versatile, although he could be when inside and how worked his way inside.

Versatile can be used in many ways to describe a fighter, as you know. Depending on how specific you want to be. You weren't specific when you said Lewis wasn't versatile, and I guess my reply was the basics of a him being versatile.

A fighter who throws a straight right hand as a lead, counters with it, can punch effectively while coming forward or backing up with it, can throw it as an uppercut, and also curve his right hand rather than throwing it straight, and punch effectively at close range with it. Thats a versatile right hand.

And I never said "Lewis punches hard and well" which equates to him being a technician. I expanded on it a bit more than that, clearly.

And you also showed a youtube clip of Lewis in his very last fight when he was out of shape. Dig out the worst and not the best. A great way to back up your claim. :good

 

I summarized your point which was simply that Lewis punched effectively from outside. You said nothing more than that and I can't see how that can be separated from his 84 inch log arms. Calling Lewis a "top technician from the outside" just doesn't make sense. Was Joe Frazier a "top technician on the inside"? A technician requires mastery of more than one set of skills -by definition.

Versatility means the ability to do many things well and changeability. Lewis had a good offense and 2 speeds. But he was a giant -and that was the foundation of his success. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

Lewis showed exceedingly poor technique and was one-dimensional in that fight and others. He was also, contrary to your post above -sloppy. His being out of shape is not enough to dismiss what your own eyes show you. Hell, I can post any number of a fat Duran with belly rolls on display even when he's standing up, but sound technique. How about James Toney? Fat, out of shape, but a technician nonetheless.

Lennox was in no way, shape, or form, a technician. He did show some technical skill against Mercer, but that fight was more of an exception than the norm. Barrera is a technician. Marquez is a technician. McCallum was a technician. Toney was a technician. Hopkins is a technician. Lewis was a great fighter and a dominant, top 10 ATG HW... but why do some insist that that means he somehow had to be either a technician or versatile? He didn't have to be -no less than Ali or Jones had to be a technician. Lennox had a different set of athletic assets that he used well.

 

Sorry but you don't beat every man you face and all top man will to fight you for over 10 years by just being 6'5 245lbs. Or Tye Fields would've been champion now.

Lewis can jab, double jab, hook off the jab, lead with the hook, land his right uppercut, fight aggressive, can stay on the backfoot for 12 rounds without being pinned on the ropes, can stand toe to toe....... if that isn't versatile, then what is?

And where did i speak off the Holmes/Berbick fights? I was talking about Norton and Frazier who gave Ali huge stylistic problems.


By the way, i think it's funny you (rightfully) disregard an argument involving Ali when he was 38 years old, but at the same time you think it's completely legit to discuss Lewis' fight when he was 37 years old against Vitali Klitschko to make your point of him not being versatile. Why the double standard?

 

For a 6' 5 guy weighing 250 lbs I'd call him a technician. W. Klitschko is the only other one I've seen of that size with as good a technique (well, perhaps somewhat better). But Barrera and others are of course light years ahead, but they are also a lot smaller.

 

Double standard noted, but he does have a point. Great technicians don't become sloppy as they age. (If the Klitschko fight is the measuring stick, where Lewis was sloppy.)
That's not to say Lewis didn't have technique, but he wasn't by rights a technical boxer. Ezzard Charles is a good example of a good technical boxer and even as an older fighter he never lost that technique.

But maybe we're talking about different things here. You mention versatility and I'm talking about technique.

 

I think he was just responding to what I would think he views as unfair criticism regarding Ali's oft-mentioned susceptibility to the styles of Norton and Frazier. Lewis beat every man he faced by way of rematch, but remember Ali nearly accomplished the same feat excepting two fighters- at a juncture when he was completely shot. So, if this is the measure of versatility we are using for this thread, then I would think it is safe to say that Ali was just as capable; if not more so. Bear in mind, I am also of the opinion that, stylistically, Ali would always struggle with the likes of Ken and Joe, but Lewis wasn't in with Ken and Joe- not even past prime Ken and Joe or however you want to spin it- he was battling what appeared to be a very emotionally unstable McCall and Hasim Rahman, so Lennox should not receive any more credit in this regard.

 

Oh, you are right. Sorry Stonehands. It's just that i mostly forget what i posted minutes after i press "submit"...

But at any rate, my point that Ali never really solved the stylistic trouble with Frazier & Norton still stands...

 

That's true, but I didn't say that the only reason he was dominant and a top 10 ATG HW was "just be being 6'5 and 245". I said that his physicality was the foundation of his success -that does not exclude other factors and I named a few of them: good jab, power, good offense... and here's more: Lennox used his physicality very effectively, particularly after Steward made some adjustments, and perhaps most importantly, he had complete self-confidence. In fact, Lewis' mentality is what any trainer would hope for. He is a good student, he combines reality with confidence, he focusses very well, and he has no fear of commitment. Psychologically, I think he's close to perfect. Physically, I think he's close to perfect. Technically? there is much to be desired. And he had the rythym of a white guy named Peabody who favors polka dot bow-ties and bowling. (Forgive the hyperbole.)

We both know that every fighter has weaknesses. What weaknesses do you see in Lennox if not these?

In other words, he has two speeds...

James Toney can fight outside, inside, mid-range, he can counter, angle all around, set traps, jab, double jab, triple jab, hook off the jab, lead with the hook, lead with an uppercut, dip to a side and lead with an overhand right, lead with a body shot, land any shot at will and make it look both easy and smooth, fight aggressively, fight off the back foot, he goes to the body well, he mixes his shots up and down, he had versatility and variability in how and where and with what speed he punches, he has versatility and variability with how he sets traps, exploits weaknesses, counters, leads, coasts, fights off the ropes, inside, etc., his defense can rely on a perfect execution of fundamentals or athletic ability-he can slip, weave, roll, parry, step back, bob, block, stop a shot at it's inception, or he can pull back, he can make you miss and make you pay in the same half second...

It all kind of makes Lennox look not technically exemplary or versatile but ... basic...and static... does it not? James Toney satisfies the definitions. I have to disagree that Lennox does.

Quick Cash and Fists of Fury explained what I meant here and I appreciate it, but I would add that I brought up Holmes and Berbick because you wrote that "[Lennox] beat every man and style he ever faced, something Ali can't say..." and these were the two men that Ali did not beat. He did beat Frazier and Norton two out of three times after all.

Also, I'd offer to you and Fists of Fury that there is no double standard. Parkinson's Syndrome had already become apparant in Ali by the late 1970s -it was already apparant by the time he faced the two men he lost to and never avenged. Lennox did not have those issues. It isn't a double standard, it's context.

I understand and accept that you think highly of Lennox. Believe it or not, I do too, and became a fan on the very night that Riddick Bowe was trashtalking to him after Bowe took the title from Holyfield in '92. Lewis said "you see, Chicken Bowe is afraid, I can see it in his eyes" -and he said it with the kind of class and confidence that made Bowe look like a dope.

 

I'd say that Lewis' technique is better than Wlad's. And I'd say that Bowe's technique is better than both.

Barrera, et al., are light years ahead but there physical size accounts for less of that than the historic problem of heavyweights to tend to rely on power at the expense of sound technique and the tendency of modern HWs to place too much of a premium on weight -no matter how much waste is on their waist.

...
We should not have a double standard to be "inclusive" of poor heavyweights. We sure as hell should not dumb down the term "technician" just so our favorite heavyweights can satisfy some imaginary "quota". Call me "intolerant."

 

Yeah, Bowe had better technique than both. And, yes, you do have a point in a way, but to some extent I believe we have to take size into the equation. Because when you do an imaginary h2h, you'd want it to come across that Lewis wasn't only big and powerful, but also quite agile, fast and technical for being such a huge man.

But, of course, if one would do a list of the great technicians, Lewis wouldn't even be close to make it. Bowe might get an honouroble mention, though, for being perhaps the most technically accomplished superheavy.

 

If Bowe has better technique than Lewis, then why did even journeymen have 50% connect percentages on him? Yes, he liked to mix it up, but his defence was ****-poor (one of the reasons of his quick decline).... for a fighter who is supposed to be so much better from a technical point of a view, he sure got hit an awful lot. Not to mention that he never learned to throw a straight right hand, as Foreman pointed out, and which among others is why he could never take Golota out, while Lewis finished him in one round.

On top of that, he can only fight effectively at medium or close range. Despite being a huge guy, he's a shitty fighter on the outside. Holyfield outjabbed him whenever he commited to it. Golota won the jabbing contest by a landslide. Tubbs made him miss all night by working from the outside most of the time. Wlad has a lot of limitations, but he'd murder Bowe on the outside, during the times the fight is fought there.

 

You make a good case. Lewis was certainly better at long range than Bowe, had better straight punches and better footwork. Bowe was better at mid to close range. What tips it in Bowe's favour IMO is that he wasn't as prone as Lewis to look sloppy at times (well, excluding the Golota fights...) and that Futch called him the most talented fighter he'd ever had.

But you're right that there isn't much between them in terms of technique.