What if Lewis came along a in the 80's?

I wouldn't exactly call losing to Oliver Mccall, drawing with an aging Holyfield and barely taking a desputed decision over Mercer dominating.

 

He fought about twenty top10 contenders in a row, he was ranked in the top5 for 11 years straight and only lost only twice, avenging both those losses by a stoppage and was the first to unify the titles since Tyson did ten years earlier. If that's not dominating then what is? And bringing up the draw with Holyfield........ atsch

 

Mike Weaver adds Lennox to his string of late one punch knockout wins over Tate and Coetzee.

 

All very good points, and I admit, Lewis was very impressive,

Except he barely defeated a 35 year old Mercer who hadn't won a fight in 2.5 years, and I personally felt that fight was close enough to where it could have been a draw. He was cleanly Ko'd by Mccall who was a good fighter, but not an all time great. The rematch wasn't a stoppage by the way. It was a case in which MCcall showed up in one of the strangest moods that I ever saw a fighter in a title match, and began sobbing for no particular reason, until his corner conceded and the victory was awarded to Lewis. The Holyfield draw was controversial, but that was a very shot Evander, and let's just say that both fights were very close. In addition, a lot of those 20 contenders that you speak of had extremely padded records, and would likely not have been title challengers in a stronger era. That said, I feel that Lewis was definately worthy of top ten status in terms of being one of the great heavyweight champions, but let's not get carried away with this whole domination thing.

 

Better yet, let's not say they were both very close because they weren't.

Did you actually see the first fight? If you did, you certainly wouldn't say it was close, that's precisely why the draw was so contriversial. And the second fight while closer, was still clearly won by Lewis. It's funny how many people actually want to re-write history, intentionally or otherwise.

 

LARRY HOLMES WOULD HAVE JABBED HIM TO DEATH IN THE 80S.....THEN TYSON WOULD KNOCK HIM OUT:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke

 

He would have dominated the 80's alot easier than the 90's

 

I would dispute the claim that Lewis dominated the 1990s.
Actually, a lot of his best work came after the 90s (v.Tua, Rahman 2, Tyson.)
Take a look at '90 to '94 : I'd say the only really big and massively impressive win of Lewis's was his KO of Razor Ruddock. That's the first FIVE YEARS of the decade, and no one claimed Lewis was dominating the division.
'95 and '96, following a 2 round TKO defeat to Oliver McCall, Lewis showed great improvement and register wins over Morrison and Mercer, but no one thought him the dominant heavyweight, that top dog honour was up for grabs through the best part of the decade and Lewis was usually a major player.
His 1997 win over 1st round Golota put him back in a top position, and it was just him and Evander left to duke it out, and Lewis proved superior in 1999, and the END of the 90s.
Many of the top names of the 1990s are nowhere to be found on Lewis's record. I think it's pure revisionism or lazy historical analysis to claim he dominated the 1990s.

Lewis's real dominance happened 1999-2003, including that swiftly-avenged hiccup against Rahman.

 

He still won. When you fight contenders that often, you are bound to have some dodgy fights. Bottomline is the win went to him and 6-4 is a good score.

He wasn't cleanly KO'd at all. He was up at six and yes he wobbled around the ring, but it was a bad stoppage anyway. Merchant didn't scream WHAT?! for no reason and many other similar fighters were allowed to continue: Golota vs Lewis, Holyfield vs Bowe III (16 seconds to recover), Holmes vs Shavers, Holmes vs Snipes, etc etc.

Unless you can convince me that Lewis won a unanimous decision, it must have been a stoppage win.

Again you have your facts wrong. McCall's corner didn't stop anything, it was Mill Lane who stopped the fight. You can't blame Lewis for McCall breaking down after not being able to lay a glove on him.

Let's not. I suggest you watch these fights because almost all of your judgements are way off. The first fight was a one-sided domination from Lewis, 9-3 in rounds is the best score you can give Holyfield. The rematch was closer because Lewis fought Holyfield's fight but it was still a clear 8-4 decision in favor of Lewis.

A shot fighter is a fighter who once was champion or contender but now loses to contenders, fringe contenders or even journeymen. Tyson vs McBride, Charles post Marciano, Ali vs Berbick, Liston vs Martin, etc.

Holyfield carried two titles in the ring, having just beaten Tyson who was thought of as invincible and avenged his loss to Moorer by KO. After his fights with Lewis he would beat two more ranked contenders and today, a full NINE years later, he's getting another shot at a title. You wanna tell me that when someone is a "very shot" fighter, he can still fight for a title nine years after he is very shot and beat several contenders along that road?

A stronger era, like the 80's?
You wanna tell me that in a world 19-8 Weavers, 14-0 David Beys, Scott Ledouxes, Tate, etc, guys like Tua, Klitschko, Holyfield, Morrison, etc wouldn't have been title challengers?

 

That's a cracking post.

 

If Lewis had come along 10 years earlier I think he'd have been one of the best fighters of the 1980s.

If an up-and-coming Lewis fought an early 80s Larry Holmes I would expect Holmes to clearly outbox him.
I cannot easily pick a winner between a late 80s peak Tyson and a peaking Lewis.
I guess Lewis would be too consistent to be dominated by the other top heavyweights of the era, but a few would stand a chance of upsetting him.
Mike Weaver, Trevor Berbick, Renaldo Snipes or Tim Witherspoon could conceivably do what Oliver McCall did to Lewis.

 

I know someone a lot faster with a bigger right hand and size than Snipes that could be hell when on (rare)

:think

 

Super Greg Page.

 

Hey, now that you mention it


:happy