Where do you rate Lennox Lewis on your ATG HW-list

.

I clearly said that Klitscko losing to Sanders after Lewis had denied him a shot, is irrelevant. I suppose you think that Lewis had a crystal ball in late 2002, and said " well, Klitschko's going to lose in 5 months, therefore I can't deem him as worthy of a title shot". And for the last time, I have no agenda against Lewis. I also said some postive things about him to, assuming you read my post properly and didn't just see the things that you wanted to see.

See the above response please.

Who said he had to be? Are you accusing me of discrimination? Because if you are, then I'd like to hear your reasons.

 

Lewis didn't fight Johnson but he intended to, Johnson pulled out 2 weeks before the fight, and Vitali replaced him, remember ?

So, I dont buy that stuff about him not fighting Byrd because Byrd was "no threat" and "nobody wanted to see it". Because Lewis's next move was to arrange a fight with Kirk Johnson.

 

Okay, but who cares? It's just a total moronic statement to say "where was Lewis when Tyson was champ".

Lewis was persuing his olympic gold medal while Tyson failed to qualify for the olympics, twice. To suggest his stayed in the amateurs to stay away from Tyson makes no sense at all. Did he even know he wanted to persue a pro boxing career? Would he even get past journeymen? All of these were unknown quantities at that time, and you think he worried about Tyson instead?

Who was it again that dropped his WBC title belt to avoid the mandatory Lewis? (and i'm not talking about Bowe)

To say that Lewis should've fought Tyson in '88 because they were just as old as is just as stupid as saying that Lewis would always beat Tyson because he knocked the **** out of him in 2002, when they were still just as old.

Sorry, i know that as ESB's Ali-cocksucker #1 you took a punch when i made a negative statement where Ali was involved. It is a pity that you don't seem to have the intelligence to realise that it was a cynical remark.

But just to make sure:
I was really 100% serious when i said that Ali was a ***** for fighting amatures as a way of ducking Patterson!

 

Actually, Wlad Klitschko was the #1 ring contender from 2001 (#6 in 2000). There were some circumstances that delayed things, i.e. the loss to Rahman and that rematch, the Tyson fight. But he could've definitely fought Klitschko if he wanted to. Let's not forget that he choose Rahman instead of Klitschko, and Johnson instead of Klitschko.

After watching this interview:

[YT]MaeGWGCA-WQ[/YT]

I did not really get the impression that Lewis was willing to make this fight.


As i said, there are some "softening" circumstances as he was on his Africa-tour with Rahman (could've fought Wlad there, though), then had the rematch, and then went for the legacy maker with Tyson, all of this in the twilight of his career. But still, i think there is some truth to him avoiding Wladimir.

 

Your consistently-mentioned point is well taken.

But analogies go only so far. In Lewis' case, my consistently-mentioned point is that the world of top-flight fighters is really pretty small. These guys know who is out there and more or less what everybody can do.

At least in my book, when as an aspiring teen boxer you have a high-profile sparring session with a guy who tries to knock your head off, and then this guy becomes heavyweight champion of the world, if you have any juices in you at all, if you have a positive self-image as a winner who is spurred by the challenge of a lifetime, you should seek that showdown ASAP.

Lewis may have been in Canada and Tyson in Catskill, but the challenge was there. Let's just say that if a peer of mine proclaims himself the best, especially as a young man, everything inside me would demand I put my best foot forward and go for it, especially in the case of "the unbeatable foe", a rampaging Mike Tyson in the '80s. That's what made Ali so great: he loved the challenge and rose up to bring down Liston and Foreman.

Besides, too lengthy an amateur career cannot be the best preparation for the pros. In fact, Lewis had glaring technical faults that were corrected, not during his lengthy amateur career, but when he hooked up with Emmanuel Steward, late in his professional career.

I happen to believe that, if you have been boxing competitively for about ten years, as Tyson and Lewis had around 1984, you're ready to think about making your move to get a shot at the heavyweight title. Unless you don't want to.

 

I have him around 7.

Main strikes against him are losing to 2 middling contenders, and not really facing a prime ATG. Also his technique was not the best - keeping his hands low was a good example, and cost him 2 fights - and he didn't really have any one quality that made him stand out as unique. I think he would fare badly in head to heads vs the other top 10 heavies.

IMO Ali, Louis, and Holmes were unquestionably greater than Lewis. Foreman, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey, Johnson and Liston were arguably better.

 

Yep, but that works both ways. Lewis never had the dominance that Tyson had 1986-1989 but Tyson never had the longetivity that Lewis had 1992-2003.

He failed his first attempt, then someone fell out and Tyson could take his place, but he lost the second time as well. I don't have the names in my head, but i could look it up if you want to.

Okay, but what is your point? Liston wasn't doing anything at the age when Tyson was undisputed. Marciano was trying out baseball when Tyson was undisputed. Who cares? It's about what they did in their primes, not at what age their primes occured. What Lewis was doing at the age of Tyson's peak is irrelevant just like it is irrelevant what Liston or Marciano did at that age (which was nothing pro boxing related either).

 

What do you put more stock in Dominance or Longevity?

 

Thats hard imo.
Armstrong was Dominance, but lack the Longevity. Only a 3 year run about. Than he just fell apart.
Ross had the Longevity in his run though. nearly 7 years or so. But Armstrong did beat Ross.

 

Lewis at this time would have slaughtered Wlad I can't see any reason he would duck him

 

Can't say i favor one over the other.

What i think is most important is the record against someone's rated opponents. Tyson has a very good list of beaten opponents, as does Lewis.
Tyson beat most of them during a small period of almost unprecedented dominance whereas Lewis has them spread over 11 years. It doesn't really matter to me that much; a ranked opponent is a ranked opponent.

I think Lewis' prime was from 1992 to 2003. He was not at his peak for the McCall I and Rahman I fights and it should be noted that he was 35 and unmotivated for the Rahman fight, but he was still in his prime.
Just like i think Tyson was still in his prime for the Holyfield fights, but not in peak ability as Lewis wasn't against the former mentioned fights.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think Tyson not qualifying for the olympics is that bad as he showed in the pro's what he was capable of. I merely brought it up because someone else brought up amateur careers and was somehow trying to say that Lewis persueing a gold medal was a bad thing.

An explanation why Lewis didn't turn pro at 24 and why Tyson was a dominant champ by age 21? Tyson peaked young when Lewis was still learning and persueing his dream of having a gold medal, simple as that. Different fighters have different primes.

Agreed, it wasn't their reigns i was comparing. I was only pointing out that the age when Tyson was undisputed, Liston and Marciano were doing nothing in pro boxing just like Lewis. So i don't really understand this criticism.

Well if you're going to count alphabet title defence fights then Lewis has more than Tyson's 9.
Tyson has 2 defences of the linear title, whereas Marciano has 5 and Lewis has 9. Now i do think Tyson is a bit in a disadvantage here, because
he beat everyone around and got all the belts but wasn't linear until he beat Spinks who avoided him for a time. Then again, Marciano did have to beat Layne, Savold and Louis (all ranked) before he got his shot and Lewis had gone through even more contenders before he got his shot at Briggs (who was lineair).

Don't get me wrong, Tyson's accomplishements are tremendous and i rank him in my top10. I don't think anyone ever dominated the division as ruthless as he did 86-89. Only Marciano perhaps.

When Tyson was 35 he was past his best. When Lewis was 35, he was also a bit past it, but not as much as Tyson and he was still the best fighter in the division.

Does this look bad on Tyson? No, i don't think so.
Just like it doesn't look bad on Lewis that he wasn't as great as Tyson was when both were 21. For Tyson it's the icing on the cake that he was so great when young, just like it is for Lewis that he aged well.

Well there are two differences. As JT already pointed out, Mercer wasn't a title defense, just a fight with a contender to stay active. Lewis fought a stupid fight (trying to knock someone out with an iron chin). Second, Lewis has plenty of better wins on his resume. Miske is one of the if not the best win on Dempsey's resume.

I am probably a bit biased towards Lewis (everyone has his favorites) but i try to be objective.

For instance, if you go one page back, you will see that i criticised Lewis for avoiding Wladimir Klitschko for over two years and posted a video which speaks bad for him.

Respectfully and a lick over your , i presume, hairy balls,

ChrisPontius.

 

Yes they are getting a bit hairy as of late. Perhaps its time for that Brazilian waxing I've been considering. :good