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

Sounds painful mate

:hey

 

How are things in Chicago? Didn't know you lived there. :bbb

 

To put it bluntly, the weather here sucks this time of year. I just got through shoveling the snow off my driveway, because the plow service that I hired didn't show up when I needed to get my car out. Anyway, things are pretty much status quo, but life is good thanks.

 

Well much of this is in hindsite, for all anyone knew at the time Lewis would have plenty of time to meet Tyson, since it appeared Tyson was going to stay on top for an extended period of time. As to the timing of when he was going to meet him, I don't think that's the decision of the boxer himself. He has a team of advisors that make that decision on his behalf, so whether or not Lewis' competitive juices were boiling, it wasn't his decision to make.

 

when someone says lewis had greater longevity than tyson - he means that lewis consistently fought AND performed well against top 10 contenders since he hit the spotlight in 1993 to 2003. tyson did the same from 1986 to 1992 imo. after 1996 - he certainly had his moments with bruno, seldon, and golota - but those were it. lewis clearly wins this and it shouldn't be debated. lewis made better choices.

on the other hand, it is true that lewis' hanging on to win the gold medal was a great thing - but in what context? the context of tyson winning the undisputed title at the same age? in that exclusive, rare, herculean context that applies only to a few like louis, patterson, ali, and tyson - lewis' gold medal doesn't appear so impressive. in any other context e.g. any boxing great's dream as a kid, etc - it is very impressive. but yes - it is not a bad thing and lewis should be applauded for taking his time when he was fully ready and then consistently ruling till he retired.

in terms of rating tyson & lewis - i rate lewis higher. legit arguments can be made for who achieved more in terms of beating contenders, dominance, whom they lost too. so what separates it for me is that tyson never beat a fighter as good as a 1999 holy - the version that lewis beat. i'm not saying 1999 holy was an atg (he wasn't) or that he was in his prime (he was over the hill and should have retired a year earlier) - but he was still better than anyone tyson beat. one could also say that lewis beat the same version of holy that outfoxed tyson - but i don't cite it because some will think i'm using foolish logic of A beats B, B beats C, A is greater than C (it doesn't work like that - who rates foreman over ali? who rates rock over scissor lol?).

the most important reason of them all for why i rate lewis better than tyson is this: lewis has shown the ability to employ a CONSISTENT strategy and to use his head and tact to respond when things are not turning his way. of course mike tyson responded to francois botha (one example) when things were not turning his way - i'm not giving that bull **** argument where tyson crumbled when things didn't turn his way. but did tyson ever do it with STRATEGY OR TACT? no. you need that ability to compete against other top 10 ATGs opponents. this is why after round 5 it was seemingly easy for holy and why douglas never struggled save for a few moments in round 3 and 8. this is why lewis gets rated higher - tyson lacked that one important substance. lewis is #9 and tyson is 10. notice while i may appear to modestly describe a fighter - it is because of CONTEXT. the context of ATGs.

 

Good arguments, however I think that rating both of these fighters at #9 and #10 is a bit low for two guys who did some of the things that they did. I have Lewis at #6, and on any given day, I might rate Tyson either a slot above or spot below. I also have to question the claim that Lewis defeated the same or even similar version of Holfield that outboxed Tyson in 96'. I think Evander was pretty well past it by 1998, but that's subject to opinion I suppose.

 

Lewis is behind atleast Ali, Frazier, Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Foreman, Holyfield, and imo

 

I used dislike Lennox to the point where I discounted his achievements and boxing prowess. I happily admit he was a damn good HW but in his respective era was third best behing tyson and holyfield

 

Tyson and Lewis really can't be remembered as sharing the same era. Tyson went to jail around the time that Lewis was maybe 17-0. This can't be held against Lennox for not fighting him. Upon his return to the sport, Tyson did not acheive enough to warrant being ranked higher than Lewis, even though I'll admit Mike was past his best. These guys past each other, like two ships passing through the night. Tyson's true era was between 1986-1990, whereas Lewis's era was more like 1992-2003.

 

On what basis? That Lewis schooled Holyfield twice (yeah we all know the second time was closer, but still a clearcut win) and performed a systematic beat down on Tyson by the time the fight eventually took place. Tyson may not have had a great deal left but Lewis still destroyed what was left (Tyson had his chance to face Lewis in '96, but then opted for the easier fight: Holyfield. We all know the rest). No excuses.

For the record I rate Tyson ahead of Holyfield overall (not by much) due to his highly impressive first title reign (even though I think Evander has his number head-to-head, certainly anytime post '90). Both rate behind Lewis, though. No doubt.

For the record I have Lewis at #4, Tyson at #8 and Holyfield #10.

 

Thats a pretty big gap for a man who lost to both Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, not to mention failed to face two contenders in Wlad Kilitschko and Chris Byrd, plus who's best wins are against a shot Tyson and Holyfield. Personally, I think Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis should be ranked closer.

 

here was never a window when he could fight wlad. Lewis was tied into mandatories[Tyson was one of them] Wlad was unranked by the orginisations from which Lewis held belts because wlad held the irrelevant wbo strap, by the time wlad was becoming the best contender out there he went and lost to Sanders.

Remember that to fight for the wbc belt sanders had to dump the wbo belt, wlad was happy pretending he held a real world title while milking the crowds in Germany.

 

probably true.

 

Ali- Sure
Frazier- Prime too short. Suspect durability and strength. No.
Louis- Sure
Holmes- Worst collection of title defences imaginable. No.
Tyson- Prime too short. Horrible era during his prime. Beaten convincingly and never avenged defeats.
Foreman- Coddled for years, beat a great on the downside for the title and then exposed for limitations. Came back against chumps, beat a horrible champ, given many gifts. Still commendable but not better than Lewis. No.
Holyfield. Good but not as dominant. Shaky in many defences.

imo.

I rank Lewis from 3 to 5 given the day.

 

The quality of Holmes title defenses were certainly below par for an all time great, but in all fairness, his competition wasn't much worse if even at all than Lewis's. Plus he at least won all of his fights during his prime, while Lewis lost to men who were arguably worse than some of Holmes' challengers. Wrap it all up with Holmes winning his first 48 fights, and I think Holmes rates highter than Lennox.