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

If you want to discuss the details of what he might have done against X and Y it's best to look at what he did against A and B.

Looking at the "whole picture" is just like saying "he had a better career".
I have no problem with saying he'd have a better career in the 80s than Witherspoon or Page had. My original post says so.
But I can also see why a few guys could be favoured over him on their best night against him at his peak too.
Head-to-head rather than accomplishments.

BTW, I think Lewis was very good against Mercer.
He looked less impressive against Butler, McCall 2, Mavrovic, Rahman 1 and Vitali IMO.
And I dont think comparing peak Witherspoon, Page, Dokes to the likes of Golota, old Tyson and Tua is as satisfactory for a fair assessment on how Lewis would match up.
Mercer is a better example surely, but that seems to be something you disagree with or refuse to acknowledge.

 

Well where's your Y? Rahman I i guess? How about we pick Holyfield I? Holyfield at this stage IMO still has more than Berbick and co to be honest. How about Golota?

We're picking out the lesser performances of Lewis, how about Snipes beating Berbick at his peak? How about Crusher beating Witherspoon? Dokes should have been peak vs Coetzee, how bout that one? Can't see any of these guys troubling Lewis let alone beating him when hand picking those peak efforts. You're picking these guys on their best night vs Lewis on a very ordinary effort cut to suit.

Not at all as explained above.

Why don't you just plain come out and say you think Lewis is crap Sonny? How in gods name can those guys be favoured over Lewis at his peak? In essence you are saying you rate these guys, who never rose near the heights Lewis did ability wise, as better fighters than Lewis. Jesus Christ. Is there anyone you don't favour over Lewis on a good night? Surely Tex Cobb can wear him down and catch him late with a bar room right hand.

Of course you do, then you can take him down by saying Mercer gave him hell and that was the best Lewis had to offer You also consider the Douglas fight Tyson at his utter best. Fair go mate.

I'm interested to know what he did wrong vs McCall?

Yeah, not fair to Lewis that is. Add aged but still effective Holyfield, the dangerous Morrison, Briggs and plenty more. His win over the still dangerous Ruddock holds him in fine stead. What's a guy like Berbick got to help him survive, let alone thrive vs Lewis? Sweet bugger all. Berbick is made for Lewis.

What Mercer is is a thinly veiled attempt to drag Lewis down the shitter. Douglas is the same per Tyson.

As we've chatted on before, i think for whatever reason you really don't even begin to give Tyson and Lewis their fair due. It's so out of character for you, 99% of your posts are absolute rippers and always just smicko. Lewis and Tyson are just a total anomoly. Sorry if you feel i'm being unfair, but at least i'm honest and upfront.

 

Both John and Sonny have good points here, and very close to meeting in the middle. John is absolutely correct in his assesment of Lewis that he indeed had some boteable career accomplishments and would have been a huge force during the 80's. Sonny on the other hand, acknowledges that Lewis was great, but had the tendency to be vulnerable on occasions. I agree with both authors. In my opinion, Lewis would have beaten most of the top 80's heavyweight and likely would have been Holmes, toughest rival, perhaps even beaten him. It's not however, entirely out of the realm of possibility for Lewis to be upset by say, a motivated Witherspoon or Weaver on the right evening. My guess is that Lewis would have emerged as one of the decades best fighters, but not without a couple of L's

 

If Lewis took Witherspoon or Weaver as legitimate threats they have next to no chance at all. Even if they did upset him he's coming back to kick their ass. That's what he did, that's all he did

:smoke

 

Less impressive Against McCall 2, Mavrovic and Vitali??
He totally dominated every second of the McCall rematch up to the point when McCall was drained of his confidence to the point he stopped fighting.
You won't see Lewis faster, accurate and relaxed than there. I would say this was Lewis' peak fight.

Dito against Mavrovic, he won all of the rounds. There was one point when Mavrovic was having succes (read: he landed a punch, similar to Foreman having succes against Holyfield, only this was even more lopsided). And when he had succes, Lewis came back 10 seconds later to hit him with far more punches, resulting in him losing that round as well.
The fight may have been boring because of the one-sidedness and Mavrovic's iron chin, but it was an absolute dominate performance.

As for Klitschko, he's an extremely akward fighter who makes everyone look bad and loses few rounds, but he still digged deep and pulled out the win when he was 37 and seemingly not in the best condition. If anything, this fight proved his heart and resilience.

Rahman 1 was less impressive, for obvious reasons although it should be noted that he won all rounds fairly easy untill the KO came.



About Mercer, Lewis never fought someone who could take his best punch and keep coming forward. Lewis went on agressive anyway which obviously played into Mercers hands thus resulting in a close fight, but still a win for Lewis. Witherspoon, Berbick, Page et all are fairly durable but not in Mercers league. He took a shitload of punishment from Wladimir Klitschko when he was 42, more punishment than i've ever seen a heavyweight take, and still ended on his feet.

 

This was hardly the best version that we've ever seen of Ray Mercer. He was 35 years old, and hadn't won a fight in 2 1/2 years. In fact he had only won about 3 out of his last 4 outings, and was only fighting on average once per year in the mid 90's. nevertheless, he took Lewis the distance in a fight that I and many others felt should have been a draw. Keep in mind, this is generous given that a few thought it was a robbery.

Of course you don't have to respond because I already know the explanation. Lewis wasn't motivated right?

 

I have never said Lewis wasn't motivated for the Mercer fight and i never will. The only fight he looked unmotivated for was Rahman I.

I already adressed it: Lewis was agressive and tried to score a spectacular knockout to promote a fight between him and Tyson and had never run into a fighter who could take his best punch all night and keep coming forward. He fought Mercers fight which played into Mercer's hands yet Lewis still won. This was a great learning experience on Lewis' part because he proved he could go to the trenches, take a lot of punches without wilting and come out on top. It proved he could fight multiple styles and answered questions about his toughness.

To make a comparison, Holmes getting knocked down badly by an inexperienced Snipes, not really known for his power, was not that impressive either, but he did prove his heart and resilience to come back.


Lewis proved in the Tua fight that he learnt from it and no logner went after an iron chin with extreme agression, but boxed smart to a shutout decision.
Hope that answers your question. :happy

 

No, I'm just saying I can see how they could be favoured over him on their best nights.
I'm actually saying Lennox Lewis performed well against Mercer but had his hands full against that fighter. You're the one who is rubbishing that Lewis effort, and then painting me as having an anti-Lewis agenda for mentioning it.

I've already said Lewis would excel in the 1980s.
That's not good enough for you. You seem very intent on painting me as a "Lewis hater" which I am clearly not.

Because I think Lewis was great.

I've never understood the problem that you have in regards to my posts about Lewis.

Because they were very good on their best nights. I'm not saying I'd pick them, and definitely not as certainties. But I can understand why they could be favoured.
I mean, apparently according to some it's not totally unreasonable to say Riddick Bowe on his best night might beat Lewis on his best night, or even that the best Buster Douglas might have beaten Holyfield ! But it's a crime to say the best Tim Witherspoon (who gave Larry Holmes hell) might reasonably be favoured over Lewis ??

Never said that. Read my posts carefully.

Dont be silly.

Why do you bring up Tyson and Douglas ?

I'm interested to know what he did wrong vs Mercer.
He showed me more in the Mercer fight.

Berbick was awkward and strong and out-hustled a lot of guys who you'd figure to beat him.
I'd favour Lewis over Berbick but I can see why others might favour Berbick.

Well, this is where you're just intent on calling me a dishonest poster. I've explained why I think Mercer fight is a worthy example. It's a good 10 round fight against a rugged typical US-styled fighter where Lewis displays a lot of his repetoire.
You think Lewis sucked in that night, not me.
So you accuse me of attempting to "drag Lewis down the shitter".

I rate you highly enough as a poster not to accuse you of dishonesty and low deceit.
For some reason you insult me with this nonsense. Not sure why.

Tyson and Lewis were great fighters.

 

You may have some valid points, but I just find it interesting how everytime someone questions one of Lewis's lesser performances, someone ( not necessarily yourself ) always seems to have an excuse of some sort or another. Lewis wasn't motivated against McCall, or he fought the wrong kind of fight against Mercer, or he didn't see Rahman as a threat, or he wasn't training with Manny Steward yet, etc. I agree that Lewis was one of the greatest fighters of all time, and I'm not trying to take that away from him, but you have authors on this board who aren't even willing to compromise and admit, that while he was certainly an elite fighter, that he wasn't invincible. It's actually gotten as bad or worse as in the case with Tyson appologist, who make excuses for him losing to Douglas.

It's also proven to be an obstacle when trying to engage in a truly intelligent debate.

 

Fair enough.
I'm not saying he was unimpressive, but I think he had to show a limited array of his ability to win in that fight.
Against Mercer I saw more.

I dont equate impressive performance with dominant performance.
Some of the most impressive performances are in close fights, even in losing efforts.

He showed heart and resilience vs. Mercer, another reason I rate him in that fight.
IMO the Lewis of the Mercer fight beats the Lewis of the Klitschko fight, and a '96 Mercer would beat a '03 Lewis.

True, but he got hit with dangerous and clumsy punches before the final punch.

I disagree in that I thought Lewis wasn't quite aggressive enough. Anyway, I agree, a win for Lewis, yes. And I was impressed with him, he showed to have many dimensions.
Others were clearly unimpressed by the Mercer fight, I dont know why. Mercer was a decent fighter.

 

In 83 Larry was noticeably a lot slower. IMO a fight in 83 would be pretty close, but before that, Larry IMO, would take Lewis quite clearly.

 

My view is simple, when it comes to Tyson and Lewis you almost always take the negative road. Unlike anything else you post about. Hey, we all have our bias.

Blind Freddy knows Lewis would excel in the 80's, how could he not.

I wouldn't call you a hater, but your opinions are certainly outside the norm either way.

You think he was great but can see how Berbick, Page, Witherspoon, Dokes and goodness knows how many others can be favoured over him on their best night.

" No, I'm just saying I can see how they could be favoured over him on their best nights."

You also favoured Witherspoon over Tyson. Witherspoon gets quite the ride from a losing effort vs a fading Holmes who stated he overtrained (yeah, excuses are common)

I read your post perfectly, yes head to head you basically do.

Because it gives great weight to my claims.

You weren't impressed with him vs McCall II, what more could he have done?

Berbick never outhustled anyone anywhere near Lewis' level, not even close. He didn't beat Holmes and he didn't beat Tyson, the only two he ever fought near or around Lewis' class. Anyone favouring Berbick knows jack**** about boxing.

I'm sorry you feel this way, really, but dishonest, deceit, insult, it's too strong. Lets stick with biased or unappreciating. We've all got some of it, some more than others. I think you're one of the least biased posters one could ever find, except per this topic which is why i am so surprised. I readily go at Pryor and Hagler, who i consider overrated to small extents. Well Pryor substancially.

Great fighters don't have the likes of Berbick and Witherspoon favoured over them Sonny. Not to mention the others.

 

JohnThomas, perhaps the difference between myself and your version of "the norm" is that I dont put as much weight on a "great" fighter over a "very good" one.

I think the great ones are the ones who had the best careers, but in most cases they aren't a vastly different (superior) species of fighter to the "very good" ones who they build there reputations competing against.

In fact, the greatness of guys like Lewis and Holyfield is in a large part built on the fact that they were consistent against men of similar ability to themselves.
It wasn't insane to favour Ruddock over Lewis, or Douglas over Holyfield, or Golota over Lewis, or Tyson over Holyfield.
And even in light of the way those fights turned out it wouldn't be insane to believe that those other guys could get it right in a rematch.
Lewis and Holyfield's superiority lies in the fact that they got it right on the night on many nights, not because they are just superior and could never have lost any of those fights.

Some try to make sense of things in their own way, there's too much categorization of fighters, and I believe their is a tendency to fetishize the "greatness" of certain fighters to such an extent that an event like Douglas beating Tyson needs elaborate explanations and exaggeration to rationalize it.

I just say "Well, Douglas boxed his best fight, and he probably deserved to be ranked about 4th in the world going in to the fight, Tyson was number 1. Tyson didn't beat him, he got beat up, Douglas's style worked well for him. On another night Tyson might have beat him, or maybe Douglas would win again. Both guys were in their prime."

Just because Tyson was "greater" (ie. he had a better career) doesn't make me try to explain it away by stressing how it wasn't "the real Tyson" and the rest of it.
I knows this irks people, but that's the way I see it.
There are usually guys among the contenders who have the ability to beat the great champions. The great champions are great because they usually win, often against men who in the cold light of day it would be reasonable to favour over them.

 

I didn't say I wasn't impressed with him.
I said I thought he was less impressive in that fight than against Mercer.

There was a lot of holding from Lewis against McCall. Against Mercer he showed more short-punching and better combinations, IMO.