He was 37 after fighting Vitali. He told Vitali to beat Kirk Johnson and he'd het his rematch. He then said his mom was making him retire.
So Whyte, Wilder, Wallin, Schwarz and Seferi are better quality tilte defenses than the likes of Tony Tucker, Mercer, Golota, Vitali Kilt, David Tua? I'll do some research on that, but my first impression is that they are not.
The difference is Lewis had already established himself as an ATG Heavyweight, i don't think Fury has done the same quite yet if he retires.
It would have been a great fight. I don’t think that Tyson clearly has the better defence. He just happens to have an amazing chin and recuperative powers. Tyson was outboxed by lesser fighters and has hit the deck a few times. Lennox would also have had a field day against the majority of Tyson’s opponents.
NOBODY is going to read all of this biased BS. You haven’t even got the brain power to have given us a breakdown on how you think they’d have matched up stylistically. I hope that you receive a perma ban. You 100% deserve it. You’re an absolute joke.
Half of Lewis's opponents were Schwarz/Seferi level bums. A-side Wlad and A-side Wilder x3 > B-side Vitali and A-side Holyfield x2 Undefeated in 33 fights > one-punch KO'd by massive underdogs crackhead McCall and greenhorn Rahman
"would you of rather of Lewis fought a rematch vs Mercer than Lewis chasing a fight vs Tyson ?" Lewis fought 12 times over 6 years post-Mercer against opponents who were not named Mike Tyson before he fought Mike Tyson. Was a Mercer rematch impossible during that time? Typically when a fight is neck and neck and ends in a controversial MD, there's a rematch to settle the score. Maybe Lewis didn't duck it but whatever the case the rematch didn't materialise. "Well that's your opinion it was a duck" There is a degree of subjectivity, ducking is not a black and white concept but Lewis promised Vitali a rematch and then said no way, despite mega money and a massive career fight being on the table. It's a stretch to say that Lewis never ducked anyone even if it was justifiable. In my view he made the right decision, many historical heavyweights have gone on for too long and tarnished their legacies. "Just imagine in an alternative universe that Lewis had fought Byrd instead of Tyson ?" Lewis's excuse was: "If I were to fight Chris Byrd, my likely next IBF mandatory defence would be against an opponent [David Tua, Evander Holyfield or Hasim Rahman] that I have already beaten." Ok, then beat Byrd and vacate the belt after. Lewis dropped the IBF belt after beating Tyson, there was a gap between Tyson and Vitali where he could have defended his belt against Byrd. But for one reason or another this didn't happen and Lewis has zero southpaws of any note on his record. "Well what's the point of bringing them up then ?" I object to the claim that "he fought everyone" when for one reason or another he didn't fight several of the best men around at the time. The best he fought by a margin were Vitali and Holyfield, he doesn't get credit for beating guys who he never made fights with for whatever reason. In fairness to Ali, he did fight pretty much everyone if not everyone of note in his era.
Interesting. So, in your opinion, an almost 40 year old Vlad and Wilder are better wins than Vitali? I feel Vatali was a better win than Wlad and Holyfield may fall short compared to Wilder. That still doesn't put Fury ahead of Lennox in my book. As champ, Lennox still beat the better opposition, defended more and reigned longer. That's if Fury stays retired.
After the first round, and especially in the fourth and fifth, Lennox and Rahman just look like two plodders. Lennox literally has no defense besides his jab, not even keeping his arms up. He would not get away with how he fought against the massive men of today. This content is protected
40 year old Wlad is a better win than Vitali. Vitali never beat anybody impressive. Meanwhile Wladimir lost a total of five rounds (five rounds with no dispute) in the nine years from January 2006 to January 2015 while defeating Povetkin, Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers, Byrd (who beat Vitali), Thompson and several other top 10 contenders of his time. Wladimir was better in 2015 than he was pre-Steward, though not in his prime.
Wlad had recorded a career best win 12 months prior to fighting Fury and athletes have been in their primes whilst being older than Wlad in less experience/skill based sports than boxing. Fury was making his world title debut, so it's a stretch to say a 27 year old world title debutant has the experience or maturity to be in his prime, especially considering how these modern SHW's typically peak in their 30's. Wlad and Wilder were both A-sides fighting in their backyards, they were also 6'5+ one-punch KO artists. Neither Vitali or Holyfield were one-punch KO artists and Holyfield was very small. Lewis was the A-side against contender Vitali and the B-side against 37 year old former 190 pounder Holyfield, who was on the cusp of losing to John Ruiz. The two most dominant wins of the bunch were Wlad and Wilder 2. Fury absorbed a literal third as many punches over 12 rounds against Wlad that Lewis absorbed over 6 against Vitali, such was the gap in defence. And the Vitali win, though legitimate and objectively a great win, was far from conclusive, with Lewis down 4-2 and gassed. Wilder got demolished the 2nd time, which Lewis wasn't able to do to Holyfield over 24 rounds, despite a faded Bowe KO'ing him 4 years prior. Obviously losses count in assessing a record as well and Lewis was bombed out twice by wide underdogs. Retiring undefeated, provided Fury becomes undisputed first, would boost his historical standing massively. Lewis's argument over Fury is the same as Wlad's argument: he defended longer and reigned longer. But this is ultimately less important than beating the absolute best men of your era and not losing, especially losing in bad fashion. Bowe gets more credit for going 2-1 with Holyfield than for his 40-odd other fights combined and arguably rightly so.