The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

I don't know why I keep wasting my time.

 

i guess we disagree on so much there is no need to argue, we just think completely differently, that's fine.

 

Yes of course. Holy realised the main thing he need to do to beat Bowe was put on extra poundage (by hook or by crook ), that's why the rematch was different. In the first fight he was hurt badly, trading with a much heavier guy proved fatal.

 

I would bet my life that a 212 pound holyfield is stronger than a 190 pound one otherwise why would he have put on the muscle to fight guy's like tyson and bowe. Come on mate be realistic if it wasn't in his intrests to do it holyfield would not have put 20 pounds of muscle on.

 

It's getting embarrassing isn't it. Despite what Holyfield's team thought, they must have made all the wrong decisions, you know with their years of experince working with fighters that put on weright to challenge other fighters. They obviously knew nothing.

 

I respect that guys views on alot of stuff but saying a 190 pound holyfield is stronger than a 212 pound holyfield is just insane, it's not like put on 20 pounds of fat, holyfield was one of the best conditions fighters ever.

 

I don't. He's exasperating. He obviously knows his stuff and his opinion when comparing fighters from the 1920 and 1930s, etc is valid. But he simply has 'little man syndrome'. Honestly, I was going to start a thread under a new pseudonym called "Jimmy Wilde vs Vitali Klitschko". Knowing he'd come on and say "...if Wilde couls stay away for four rounds....etc etc." He's that bad. I knew just by his posts he was obviously a small fry (I know a bloke exactly like him: Appo. It really is uncanny). He's the same.

 

Not china chinned, but seeing as to how easily he got hurt by Bowe in their first fight, despite outlanding Bowe by something 2:1, i don't want to imagine what happened if he was even smaller. However, we KNOW what happened when he was a little bigger: he beat Bowe.

This statement makes it clear to me that you've never boxed. And that is not to disrespect you or anything, but: you seem to think "well if he's lighter he'll need to move less weight so he'll tire less fast".
Which is 100% true.



.... if you're shadow boxing.

When you're fighting a guy who has 30 lbs on you, it tires you out insanely fast, you need to be focused at all time, move in and out really quick, watch out to be cornered, notice that two of your punches do less than one of his to you , etc....
If you're fighting someone that much bigger then it pays off to bulk up yourself because you have the above stated problems to a smaller extend.
Why do you think Chris Byrd bulked up? To look more intimidating?

This is again not putting things into perspective.

You're used to Tyson being bossed around in the clinches.

But he did it for a reason: because he was a small guy. He was always fighting 6'3-6'5 230lb opponents which obviously makes him look (and be) less strong. He choose to rest and not waste energy on wrestling a bigger guy around that leans on you.
So just because they did it you assume a lightheavyweight or cruiserweight can do it. Well, i strongly doubt that. I'm sure i don't need to remind you how many seconds an all time great, undefeated light heavyweight lasted with him. Compare that to the succes Tunney had against Marciano. He had only a 10lb weight step to overcome, Spinks had a 40lbs gap. That tends to take something out of you durability and power wise.

 

I did have a good laugh in this thread though.




Yet again, a Dempsey fan says "No, Jack Dempsey was waay to big, RJJ has ZERO chance with him" etc. That's a 15lbs weight advantage.



Then Lewis has a 45lbs weight advantage on Dempsey, but instead of having 3 times the "zero chance" that Roy Jones has, Dempsey will knock Lewis out because he knocked out a 37 year old skill less Willard, etc.....

 

Regardless, I still think Willie Shoemaker has a chance against Dempsey.

And that is all.