The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

Just like kelly pavlik can ko god

 

Pavlik KO 1 Klitschko.

 

Be smart. Be safe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE8Lk2kSCDo

 

I really did live in the wrong era.

Holy hell, those are some sweet bells! And the hair!

Uh. Um. That came out wrong.

He's kinda got a Broadway Joe thing going on, or vice versa.

Back atcha: http://www.searchforvideo.com/sports/soccer/players/kevin-keegan/

 

Do ya think?

 

It wouldn't even last 1 round wlad would know that pavlik could ko god and not even turn up.

 

Someone observed the rate at which this thread has grown. The reason is obvious, the comment that Lennox is the GOAT is highly debatable. If the thread was Ali is the GOAT, nothing would happen except for the occasional, 'I agree' or 'correct.'

Anyhow, assuming this thread has not completely burnt out, here are my 3 main reasons why Lewis is definitely NOT the GOAT.

1) Quality of opposition defeated: '99 Holyfield is worse than '64 Liston, '74 Foreman and '73 Frazier) - therefore Lewis is inferior to Ali (and others).

2) Quality of opposition lost to: '94 McCall and 2001 Rahman are worse than '73 Foreman and '74 Ali - therefore Lewis is inferior to Frazier (and others).

*Marciano never lost, including to fighters better then '94 McCall and 2001 Rahman e.g. '52 Walcott and '51 Louis.

3) Manner of losses: One punch KO's are the most denigrating of losses. Compare how Tyson lost his title to Douglas, he went down in flames, looking for openings right to the end, despite one of the worlds worst sustained pummelings. Therefore, Lewis is inferior to Tyson.

Of course, you have to stack the 3 criteria up, and I hope some posters will have the energy to do this. Ali is better on all criteria, other ATGs such as Louis, Frazier, Marciano, Tyson, Foreman and Holmes are better on 1 or 2 criteria.

Postscript: In Lennox's favour - he aged well and had very good longevity, the total losses of 2 is very good, and he was a nice fella who did a good PR job for boxers. Plus he is non-American. But all this falls woefully short of GOATness...

 

Popwerpuncher, if u belive that a 35 yr old Tyson could beat a peak Dempsey, then sorry, u r being very biased.

 

It is a matter of degrees. If you watch Dempsey in real time or late in his career he looks a lot better than early in his career in the unedited film.

I could show you two films of a given fighter where they looked superb in one and prety amateurish in an earlier film.

So yes the quality of the film is an issue. You can't get round it.

 

Well if he didn't have the extra strength and muscle, lennox would have just shifted him all round the ring, at 190 he ws not strong enough to match up with lewis.

 

Yes, i believe he would've.


And guess what, so did Holyfield. Because he knew he needed the extra weight to compete with the big boys and added it.


Bowe-Holyfield I was at the time seen as a case of a big skilled man beating a smaller skilled man, simply as that.

Holyfield added another 10lb and beat Bowe in the rematch.




As to your other post, i think it's going nowhere. If you keep insisting on Firpo and Willard being more skilled than the punchers than Lewis faced, calling Willard better technically than Bruno and Firpo more skilled than Rahman (as bad as he is), calling Billy Miske, a freaking lightheavyweight with a 33% knockout ratio (!!) a "knockout artist", then i'm afraid nothing can convince you, except for taking off rose colored glasses.