The case for Lennox Lewis being GOAT

For every one example of this kind of thing, there are easily 20 that will contradict it. Some of us just cannot see the likes of Lewis being beaten by a guy who'd be a light at cruiserweight. Amongst loads of examples I could use is John Conteh, who started at heavyweight until Muhammad Ali, as well as others, told him in 1972 that he's "Not big enough to take on guys like me, Frazier and Foreman and to "go down to light-heavy and become a legend". Wise words. This wasn't 1920, if it was he'd have stayed at heavyweight and might have been a champ. 185 pound guys who are there to be hit would have little chance with Lewis.


And yes The Ring are stupidly biased to American fighters by and large, or at least they were. Just look at their Fighter of the Year lists...although they have improved, recently.

 

He wouldn't need it after a 1st round KO. :yep

 

At least he mightn't take backhanders like some of their writing staff. :good

 

If you're equatinig Shavers with "any guy", I'd have to say the conversation takes an ignorant but abrupt halt right here.

Shavers did not just have a ridiculous right; he had a great left and decent defense. He gives Lennox and much more serious (not to mention fearsome) challenge than "any guy" -- and certainly more than 1 in 10.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I think Lewis would last more than one round here.

Seriously no fighter has ever breathed who would be much better than even money against a prime Dempsey.

 

Agreed,

and not to mention who gives a **** about what a magazine says. I prefer to do my own research by looking at multiple articles, fight footage, records, statistics, etc. rather than to take to heart the testimony of a periodical who's author is just as biased as the next guy. I used to go see movies based on the critic's ratings. I soon found that I was a lot happier by using my own judgement.

 

Was he really? Funny that but the Boxing News preview of Shavers vs Quarry predicts a Quarry KO IN 3. Not that feared then...it also called Lyle over Shavers too, by knockout again. :good

 

So, when's the next 185 pound dominant heavyweight arriving then?

 

Seriously, you want to get over your little man syndrome.

 

I always say I make my own opinions about boxing, when I say for example "Mac Foster is for me personally one of the hardest HW-punchers ever" (rare power), than often people say things like "But in the Ring Magazine, etc.,..." damn, it´s also only a magazine where are most writers biased like every men, most people are biased...

 

Well, which is it: do you "not give a ****" about magazines, or do you actually in fact read multiple written sources to "do your research"?

Friend, guess what: reporters who WRITE for magazines do what you do. You're not the only one who researches, reads multiple sources, and uses judgement to form an opinion.

It doesnt sound like you do much research, to be completely frank. I don't know what "taking to heart the testimonial of a periodical" means, to paraphrase you. You mean quotes in a paper?

You mean you never read a great history by an author who wasn't party to the events him or herself? Or that you wouldn't trust one?

 

Seriously, the UK will have another decent boxer in about 30 years.

 

Really? I completely change my opinion, then. All vague references consisting of one sentence do that to me.:happy

 

Yeah, good post. I respect lots of writers but i like to look at different sources too. I always found the NY Times and Ring more biased towards Americans than Boxing Illustrated were (in the 50s-80s) for example. Of course, Boxing News could be a the same with our fighters but at least they had different categories for Fighter and Fight of the year: i.e. British and World.