My top 10 Heavyweight list

Yo, foreman whips all in there he wood ko lennox lewis eazy. That Ali fight n Zaire was Fake! U's don't know that.. Foreman whipped ass in the 1990s at a old age. Joe lewis was the perfect fightin' machine yet any one knows he can't stand up to foreman. Come on. For GOD's Sake, didn't You's See Frazier Boots Foreman knocked em for a Loop. Foreman is it. Later. MAD - MIKE -

 

That's exactly what i meant. The only reason that Zakman or others won't say "He shouldn't have been in the ring for the first Lewis fight because of that" is because he won in the second round. For all we know, he would've quit just the same after 5 rounds. Gotta love the double standard.

 

Well, you did a great job of describing how Lewis was hurt. And you can do exactly the same with Holmes vs Shavers, Golota vs Lewis, Holmes vs Snipes, Foster vs Frazier, Holyfield vs Bowe III, etc etc. But they were all allowed to continue and no one complained about that. Did you see how bad Frazier went all over the ring against Foreman yet was allowed to go on over and over?

Lewis got up a bit too quick, hadn't cleared his mind yet but was aware of where he was and what was going on, as evidenced by his immediate "what the hell?" gesture when the fight was stopped. He held his gloves up to sign "i'm ready to go on".

 

Chris,

I am still struggling to follow your logic.

I think you have just stated that a glorified sparring partner, in a condition of mental instability, and probably ineligible to be in a pro boxing ring, knocked out your favorite fighter, allegedly TOP3 all time, in 2 rounds.

Go figure.

 

Where did i state he was a glorified sparring partner? And yes, he has always been in a condition of mental instability as have tons of other boxers.

And the reason you stuggle to follow my logic is because you're not reading. I have already stated before that throwing a christmas tree around is not a reason not be allowed in the boxing ring, or we'd be deprived of 80% of all fights. Zakman was the one saying that McCall shouldn't have been allowed in the ring with the rematch, and i said that by applying his arguments, McCall shouldn't have been allowed in the ring in the first fight either.

 

The McCall breakdown debate which seems a bit pointless. I dont see how Lennox Lewis can be credited for anything other than beating Oliver McCall, an unimpressive fighter. I guess it's nore significant that he LOST to him.

McCall deserves no alibis for losing to Lewis, nor does he need any. The guy was a puching bag against Frank Bruno for chrissakes. Strong, well-conditioned durable fighter, nothing more than that. On Lewis's resume his name shouldn't have been that much more worthy than Gary Mason, it seems to be him beating Lewis that brings him attention.

 

I cant see the sense on the pro-Lewis side of this McCall debate, either.

If McCall was always mentally weak then that reflects badly on Lewis, worse than if he was healthy.

If he was healthy both times that still doesn't say much for Lewis, unless you think McCall was some sort of special fighter.

You can say "brutally avenged" all you want, looks like the bum quit to me, looks like he was not the type of opponent an all-time great should lose to.

Sure, maybe Lewis DID beat "the real McCall", but so did Bruno, Douglas, Tucker, (I think Mike Hunter beat him too?), even Bruce Seldon had him beat for first 8 rounds.

Lewis losing to McCall is worse than Patterson losing to Johansson, worse than Louis losing to Schmeling, worse than Ali losing to Norton. Beating McCall doesn't wipe out the fact of losing to him.

 

Dempsey wasn't Dempsey when he lost to Flynn.

I know you're going to play ignorant on this, and pretend that you cant see the difference but I'll repeat myself anyway.

Lewis was considered by many as the best active heavyweight in the world at that point, he was the man Riddick Bowe had avoided, the man who had beaten Razor Ruddock and other contenders. He was fighting two fights a year on a modern world championship schedule, training camps, million dollar purses, and everything.

Dempsey was a hobo-fighter fighting whenever he could for pennies and working day jobs in harsh economic conditions, a young kid from the west who hadn't learned enough about boxing at that point to crack the better fighters in New York, some of whom he obviously wasn't ready for. Everyone who knew Dempsey in those days said he was an under-fed poorly dressed pauper and a raw fighter. Allegations of him throwing the fight are to be taken seriously, he looks like the ideal candidate to be inclined to do such a thing, a young "unknown" professional in dire need of money.

It wasn't until about a year later, the discovery of a real manager and at least 12 fights later that Dempsey even began to look like the emerging new contender.

Of course, I know you just bring up Flynn to amuse yourself and get a reaction. That's fair enough. But it wont deflect anything from the issue of Lewis losing to McCall.

 

I'm not excusing Joe Louis, his loss to Schmeling is a significant blemish.

Lennox Lewis was an established elite heavyweight when McCall beat him. Whatever flaws he had didn't stop him being a top-flight heavyweight of the era, regarded as the best in many quarters.

Dempsey was a second-rater at best at the time in question, just a raw kid with talent, even the tough New York journeymen gave him beatings back then. He wasn't ready for contenders - and therein lies the difference.Lewis got iced when he was the number 1 guy, Dempsey when he was a nobody.

Steward may have improved Lewis, but Lewis went on to get tagged by other fighters, and Rahman KO'd him with a lead right !

On the contrary, I feel no need to find a reason.
The result is about as insignificant as it gets. Just trying to explain to you WHY it's not significant.

Put it this way - if Dempsey had never fought again after Flynn beat him we wouldn't even know who Dempsey was, we wouldn't have a clue. The most dilligent boxing historians would even barely know him, he'd be an absolute nobody.

If Lewis had never fought again after McCall beat him, we would still know all about Lewis, he'd still be a big talking point here. He'd still be the man who beat Razor Ruddock, the man who Riddick Bowe ducked, one of the most talented heavyweights of the 90s, rated number 1 in 1993-'94 by many people etc. etc. etc.

Wait a second, aren't you and ChrisP arguing against some others here about evidence of McCall "going off the rails" ?

I've actually agreed with the general gist of what ChrisP says - "no alibis for McCall, he was always crazy" or such like - I've highlighted the double standards used with Tyson in an earlier post.
Tyson had no trouble beating a load of top fighters while his life was in "chaotic turmoil" or whatever.When he loses it's an issue.

You're the one who seems to be selecting when to see and expose double standards, and when to hide behind them.

Tyson was the number 1 guy BEFORE he lost to Douglas, and he crushed or dominated some genuine contenders AFTER he lost to Douglas. The Douglas defeats occurs in the midst of many vintage Tyson performances.

Dempsey hadn't beaten any meaningful opponents when he faced Flynn. The best fighters he'd faced were the ones in New York, he'd failed to KO any of them. John Lester Johnson beat him badly according to Dempsey.

It wasn't until later that Dempsey started KOing top fighters. You say "the very next year", YES, he improved quickly with the right manager and numerous fights in that period. He KO'd Jim Flynn a year later.
But everything that was significant happened AFTER he lost to Flynn.

As for making allowances for Dempsey's hobo poverty, taking the fix allegations seriously, along with other tales (eg.of him sleeping on a central park bench the night before he fought Johnson and riding the rods or walking the desert between fights), and all that stuff - well, people in those days lived like that, the cobditions WERE harsh even in America, it's just the way things were.I have little reason to doubt.

Excuse me for not shedding a tear for Tyson's own obvious troubles - the multi-million purses, the big mansion, Robin Givens, Naomi Campbell, a whole industry that fed on him winning his fights, training camps, two to three fights a year, access to everyone who's anyone in boxing, kids wanting to be like him, a well-sponsored education and grooming to be heavyweight champion from a young age . Obviously the evidence clearly shows that champion Tyson had so much more stacked against him than a 1917 second-rate hobo fighter ever had to contend with. Not.

 

Page should have kicked his ass for that.

Seriously.

 

Greg should have unless:

1) He was scared of Oliver.
2) He felt so much animosity toward his wife that he truly could've cared less.