(PRIME) Anthony Joshua vs. (PRIME) Lennox Lewis

lol makes a change doesn't it

 

Weight and size is the evolution of the division.

Just look at this fight:

This content is protected

Who would you say is more skilled? And who is more talented? Its easy for me.

Chambers is a really skilled boxer but that doesnt help against size. Washington is like the baseline of the modern heavyweight division in my honest opinion and he manhandled fast Eddie like nothing. Eddie Chambers would be much more successful in a weaker smaller era like the 60's to 90's when the average was much smaller compared to today. To be a big guy with some skills back then was a golden chance to glory.

Today a guy like Washington get sparked out cold by a more skilled SHW but still beats a guy from the 80's like nothing because of the size difference.

 

Louis had it all. He was strong, a hard puncher, great from the outside and up close, could box and brawl, fluid movement. The only thing Joshua is equal in is punching power and physical strength. Louis would win.

 

This is a poor example - Chambers was right at the end of his career and never reached the heights many expected of him. In fact, he only had one fight following this defeat which was last year against a journeyman.

Let me remind you Wladimir Klitschko lost 3 fights to guys who were shorter than him, his brother lost to Byrd, Lewis got stopped by two smaller guy, Joshua got sparked by Ruiz.

6’7 giant Akinwande couldn’t dominate in the 90s, 6’5 Tucker lost to a 5’11 Mike when he was at his peak, neither could Biggs. There have been plenty of giant heavyweights from the past, not as many as today, but few have been able to truly dominate.

Skills win boxing fights, and being able to utilise your physical abilities effectively. Most of the giant heavyweights today can’t, unless you are named Fury and Joshua. Wilder was a freak of nature also, but I think suggesting a guy like Washington who was never more than a journeyman would have more success in the 80s than today is ridiculous. Guy would have been sparked by the first big puncher he faced, he got ragdolled by Kownacki who is hardly a giant himself.

 

This is a great example they are the same age and Washington basically out an end to his HW career attempt here.
Again look how easy Washington won against Chambers. Size beats skills easily. I already knew this fight was over before it started.

You do realise Akinwande was ranked 7 in the ring annual ratings? Washington looks better. Michael Grant was ranked 3rd two years in a row.

Of course a guy at 6'3" can beat a 6'6" guy but a guy around 6 or under will have to be super skilled to beat Gerald Washington not even Eddie Chambers could. Just look at how poor Akinwande boxed and he was still so high in the ratings.

Size and skill goes hand in hand for the division. Also saying USA athletes choosing other sports has small impact compared to the rest of the world choosing boxing and or are allowed to compete like ex Soviet countries, cuba, China etc.

The golden era of the HW division is right now.

 

Size is definitely an advantage but only if you know how to use it, which most super heavyweights don't. You look back at the dominant heavies of each era they not only have been big but also knew skills like clinching, framing, posting, underhooks etc, meaning these bigger slower heavies couldn't be out sped by faster smaller opponents because they used their size to physically control them and grind them down.

Joshua losing to Usyk is a prime example of that. Ali losing the first Frazier fight too, but then Ali using clinching in the 2nd fight to slow down and control Frazier turned things around in the rematch and of course Foreman manhandling Frazier and winning despite the difference in speed being another example. But Frazier also beat many bigger men, but those big men didn't do what Ali and Foreman did.

So yes size is beneficial but only to the bigger man with the skills to know how to use their size against smaller, faster opponents. Guys like Joshua, Akinwande, Tucker, Bugner etc all big men but lost to smaller men because in the end they didn't have the skills to use their size.

I think we'll see this when Fury fights Usyk. He unlike Joshua will use these skills to utilise his size and take away Usyk's speed, force him into a physical fight where he can't just box in and out and score points because he'll be pushed around, made to reset, forced into positions where Fury can land punches, ground down physically.

 

Frazier was even smaller than Mike Tyson in reality, and had less weight with higher body fat percentage.

Frazier around 5'10" Ali and Usyk around 6'2.5"

Then Joshua a shade under 6'6" according to celebheights. Difference here is that Usyk is much more skilled than Joshua to steal the victory from him. Ali relied on size and athletics with just some skills to beat smaller or similar sized men.

Tyson Fury is more compatible with Ali then Usyk because of the differences in size in the HW division. But he is not only much bigger he is more skilled aswell with so many tools.

P4P Usyk is the most skilled cruiser/heavyweight of all time at that size range: Ali/Holmes/Foreman/Holyfield/Haye/Bellew/Usyk etc etc.

Weight wise Tyson and Wilder is also in that category but they dont belong there height wise.

When Usyk faces Fury i will be rooting for Usyk but if he loses this will be the last nail in the coffin for me.

The Heavyweight division works a bit like this since the 50's: Athletics, skills and size compete with eachother. Everything gets better all the time but in skills and athletics it doesnt show as much because it is more subtle. Size on the other hand also goes up slowly but compare average weight from top 10 annual rated Boxers of each 5 years and it will be a huge increase over the years.

Compare Akinwande and Washington and say to me who of them looks more skilled and athletic? For me its easily Washington. But Washington is no where near to be found in the top 10 ratings like Akinwande was. Hrgovic is like that guy and he is much better than Washington from the eye test.

 

How can the golden era be now when no one has been fighting each other until the Saudis bank rolled the division? How can the golden era be now when we have the supposed number 1 nearly losing to an MMA fighter and the guy with the most defences having made most of them against journeymen? What a ridiculous statement, not rooted in reality.

Again, the Chambers example is a dreadful one. Washington was early on his career (he started late) while Chambers was at the end of his career and fought once more while Washington is still boxing. Chambers had lost already at that point and was completely finished at the top level. A younger version of him beats Washington, as do any solid heavyweights. The guy got destroyed by d level Kownacki.

What happened to Akinwande and Grant after their high rankings? They didn’t become notable players in theirs era and are largely forgotten because they were beaten by better heavyweights and got stopped by smaller guys like McCall and Guinn. They do not support your argument whatsoever.

Americans have traditionally dominated boxing, you can look back through the eras and this has always been the case until recently, notably at heavyweight.

Guys like Tyson and Holyfield would rag doll the likes of Washington, Zhang, Joyce - they simply are nowhere near as skilled or as athletic. Fury and Usyk are elite, Joshua might be and Wilder is a hall of fame puncher. Parker is also very good. The rest, are nothing special. I doubt they would have been anything special in the 80s and 90s either.

 

Lennox obviously wins most likely, but if Rahman and McCall could KO him then an AJ upset certainly isn't out of the question.

 

Lennox lewis ko 10

 

Joshua would be badly knocked out against both versions of these guys. (Rahman and McCall)