What would Ruiz and Byrd have added to Lewis' resume?

Mild at best. Neither guy was ever taken seriously as a champion. If boxing wasn't corrupt, had only one titlist per division, Byrd and Ruiz would have been ranked contenders in the #6 or #7 kind of range. I respect both guys, as they went a long with serious limitations, but they were never, ever seen as threats to Lewis.

 

Chris Byrd was a top 3 fighter for years on end, including while Lewis was active. It wasn't because of the belt he had.

 

Byrd would have been a significant addition, Ruiz less so.

 

Perhaps this gives the Dempsey Wills controversy a bit of perspective.

I am not saying that the situation is equivalent, but many people are very happy to accept that Lewis did not fight these eminently qualified contenders, and defended his title against weaker contenders, some of who they had beaten.

 

When was Byrd ranked 3rd while Lewis was active?

 

He was 4th in 2001 if you count Lewis and 3rd in 02, 03, and until whenever Lewis retired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "active" and "ranked 3rd"

2001

Lennox Lewis, Champion
Wladimir Klitschko
Mike Tyson
Chris Byrd
Hasim Rahman
Kirk Johnson
Evander Holyfield
John Ruiz
Jameel McCline
Fres Oquendo
David Tua

2002

Lennox Lewis, Champion
Wladimir Klitschko
Chris Byrd
David Tua
Evander Holyfield
John Ruiz
Hasim Rahman
Vitali Klitschko
Kirk Johnson
Mike Tyson
Jameel McCline


2003

Lennox Lewis, Champion
Vitali Klitschko
Chris Byrd
Corrie Sanders
Roy Jones Jr.
James Toney
David Tua
John Ruiz
Wladimir Klitschko
Fres Oquendo
Mike Tyson

 

This is simply another case of a clash between business interests and boxing legacy interests. During the years there were numerous fights who may have deserved shots at the title, only to be denied because the fight wasn't deemed lucrative enough. Sometimes timing also plays a factor, and champs in the twilight of their careers often focus on maximizing their revenues from the few paydays they have left. Lewis - Tyson is a perfect example of this.

 

I agree on Byrd. He was a highly ranked guy, and it could have shown how Lewis matched up with a defensive southpaw.

With Ruiz, he was a hated type. Lewis KO'ing him would add to his fan base. Ruiz, of course, has a win over Rahman and Holyfield, as well as a DQ win over Kirk Johnson.

Ruiz beat Tucker and Golota as well. So Ruiz has many of the same names that Lewis has on his resume. Beating him would add depth to his resume.

Anyone who thinks these two would not have added something to Lewis resume isn't being objective and very likely says this because he dropped belts / avoided fights with both. So they act like neither was worth it for Lewis.

 

And on the flip side of things, anyone saying it would greatly have enhanced his legacy doesn't know wtf they are talking about. I think there would have been nice additions to his legacy, but nothing earth shattering.

 

I think these votes make the most sense:

A clear legacy boost

A mild legacy boost

Those who say a Greatly enhanced ( very few here ) or no legacy boost ( way too many here ) I think are wrong.

For a huge Legacy boost, Lewis would need to fight Tyson and Holyfield 2-3 years sooner, and re-match Klitschko and win all three.

 

Out of curiosity where do Byrd and Ruiz rank on your top 100 chart?

The way I see it a win over a top 100 in his prime, which Byrd and Ruiz were in 1999-2002 means something to a legacy, and should actually count far more than say Larry Holmes beating a possibly #1 ranked Ali.

Do you agree?

 

Byrd was pretty good. I reckon he'd be solid in any era. Ruiz ... yeah, Ruiz would just be a payday. I don't rate him highly at all.

 

why would you think the most popular option is wrong? because you disagree with it personally since it hurts your K bro agenda, yeh.

Neverthelesss you missed an option that reads "no additional legacy whatsoever", perhaps that's why that option has all the votes that this new option would have had.